Blended and online learning: what works and why in primary and secondary schools. Evidence from Northern Ireland

ABSTRACT

Data from a sample of teachers, parents and pupils in Northern Ireland about their experiences of blended and online learning during the pandemic has thrown light on effective practice and some of the reasons for this. After an initial period of uncertainty and confusion, most of the five schools studied found ways to provide regular online lessons which in many cases had high levels of interaction between teachers and pupils and in some cases between pupils. This was true also in schools which had high levels of pupil disadvantage measured through entitlement to free school meals. The reasons for the emergence of good practice were the prior investment in ICT facilities for every school, the support provided through educational authorities and local teacher networks, and the quality of leadership in schools.

KEYWORDS:

• Blended learning
• COVID-19
• schools

Introduction

Although every school system around the world has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the way countries responded to the pandemic has not been uniform. This variability is the focus for an Erasmus-funded project called Repurposing Education through Blended Learning (REBEL) with partners in Northern Ireland (NI), Ireland, Malta and Cyprus. The focus in this article is on one of the partners in the REBEL project: NI.

Based on data collected on the impact and legacy of the pandemic on teaching and learning, this article examines how schools gradually adopted blended online learning in 2020–21 and identifies what emerged as effective practice, and the causes.

While many school systems adopted online learning, NI unusually has a single managed ICT (information and communications technology) service in all (grant-aided) schools providing a common infrastructure of hardware, software, services and connectivity, upgraded and refreshed periodically, thus providing the structural capacity to facilitate online learning. It also has a history of investing in projects encouraging schools to use ICT to work with other schools, in NI, across the island of Ireland and internationally (Hunter & Austin, 2020).

In March 2020, schools across the UK closed to most pupils. This pivotal moment necessitated most pupils learning remotely from home, and teachers had to adapt quickly to new ways of teaching. Schools all over the UK were not able to carry out their normal activities to support learning, pastoral needs, transition to high-stakes national examinations and, in NI, to prepare for transfer tests from the primary to the selective post-primary sector. Instead, they had to provide learning in different modalities. This led to diverse pedagogical approaches, created individually by teachers and school leaders, constrained by the resources and expertise available.

As Petrie et al. (2020) stated, teachers were launched, unprepared, into using online systems and consequently, the scramble to online pedagogy left many teachers far away from effective practice. While research has been produced, in a very short time, into the effectiveness of online learning, there is much still unevaluated. This study sets out to answer the following three research questions:

• What kinds of blended learning and online learning were provided by schools during the pandemic?

• How effective were they in school?

• What factors facilitated or hindered effective teacher and pupil engagement?

Literature review

Remote learning in schools

Types of remote/blended learning

A wide range of e-learning platforms, software and education technologies were used during the pandemic, either offline and/or online in many schools in economically developed countries. Asynchronous practice was more prevalent than synchronous online learning across the UK during the first lockdown in March–June 2020, with about 90% of parents of both primary and secondary children reporting that their child received offline learning resources (Howard et al., 2021). Other teachers provided a presence to their pupils in real-time, ‘live’ online sessions. They taught, assessed pupils, provided feedback and organised separate virtual ‘rooms’ for group or pair work (Brink et al., 2020), using conferencing software, which supported, for example, text chats, verbal interaction and interactive whiteboards. There is evidence that the preparedness of teachers for employing blended learning after COVID is moderate at best, and that the factors which influence that readiness are complex (Anoba & Cahapay, 2020). The experience of emergency online education for teachers and others may have developed teacher skills, but the impediments to embedding technologies in schools (Sherry & Gibson, 2002) appear largely unchanged.

Hybrid learning

In the autumn and winter of 2020–21, the pandemic moved into a second phase. Many pupils returned, but others still had to isolate at home, so teachers had to offer face-to-face teaching for those in the classroom and online teaching for those at home. Because of this, some leaders and teachers looked to a hybrid model. Hybrid learning combines classroom teaching with remote online activities using technology that allows lessons to be provided simultaneously, in real time, for pupils who are in class in person, and for those connected remotely, learning at home. No distinction is made between the provision for remote pupils and those in school. Hybrid learning makes it easier to limit the number who are in school at any given time and allows teachers to keep track of which pupils are in contact with each other. Hybrid learning was a practical solution for providing classes during the pandemic.

During Spring 2021, some schools split classes into two groups, providing simultaneous hybrid live teaching to both at the same time (Baron et al., 2021). Schools in Denmark, for example, divided primary classes into two groups with teachers providing mathematics and language teaching to one group face to face, while the remote group used an e-learning platform. Some Chinese schools divided up classes, keeping both in the same school but in different places: teachers provided teaching to both groups through a live video feed, physically switching classrooms periodically. One advantage was simplicity: teachers needed little retraining and used existing lesson plans. However, it proved harder for remote pupils to follow a lesson being provided to a large group of learners in person. Norgard (2021, 1710) stated that, currently, ‘hybrid learning environments are challenging and under-researched. The dissolution of dichotomies central in hybrid learning makes it more complex and less predictable’.

Sharp et al. (2020) commented on the importance of robust hybrid learning. They reported that when English schools readmitted pupils in June 2020 engagement with, and quality of, remote learning, reduced. ‘Staffing was skewed towards in-school provision at this time to meet the demands of social distancing, leaving pupils based at home with less attention from their teachers’ (p. 8). They recommended that in future episodes: ‘properly-resourced remote learning needs to be coupled with high-quality in-school teaching’ (p. 8).

Engagement with learning

While engaging learners and connecting them with each other and their learning was a central priority for teachers during remote learning (Ewing & Cooper, 2021), engagement with pupils was often found challenging. It was hard for teachers to be in close daily contact, where pupils could chat informally with them, converse with peers and ask questions. Teachers developed novel ways of engaging with learners. Ofsted (2021) reported that in England and Wales teachers used one-to-one phone calls with pupils and parents, chatroom discussions, learning software, questioning during live lessons and digital workbooks, which allowed comments to be made and feedback given. One study found that, for teachers, low engagement was a concern. Most concern was expressed about low engagement from those learners with limited access to devices and/or connectivity and/or those who did not have suitable spaces in which to learn at home. There were also concerns for vulnerable pupils, pupils with SEN and disabilities and those from economically deprived backgrounds and young people who were also carers (Lucas et al., 2020).

Findings from a survey of over 4000 parents in NI during Spring 2020 (O’Connor et al., 2020) showed most parents of secondary school children (75%) were using a wide range of resources to support their children’s engagement with learning: websites (46%), apps (25%), online resources (24%) and printable worksheets (22%) respectively, while others (9%) reported using television programmes as well as school materials. Some parents of primary school children commented positively about the variety of remote learning opportunities, whilst others found the very range of different types of activity meant it was challenging for children to engage. This sentiment was echoed by Northern Irish secondary school parents (Roulston et al., 2020), where the wide variety of remote learning interfaces caused issues: ‘there were too many apps to access’. Another respondent stated: ‘two different interfaces being used – teachers chose which they preferred, so that made things more complicated’ (p. 17). Findings from Bates et al. (2021) make clear that there was ongoing instruction from Northern Irish primary schools to help parents support their children’s learning. At the time of school closures in Spring 2020, 81.5% of parents were sent information on how to access online materials, and 69.2% received guidance on how to use the learning material provided by the school, with over three-quarters (77.5%) of parents receiving regular updates.

The demands that the pandemic imposed on school leaders were considerable, and there is considerable research suggesting that they are inadequately prepared to engage in crisis management prevention or response, including to extreme weather events (Bishop et al., 2015), and the almost unprecedented scale of crisis that COVID imposed upon schools was of a higher order to most. Despite that challenge, it has been reported that school leaders adopted a flexible approach to remote learning, consulting with staff, pupils and parents and training staff how to refine remote lessons to make them more effective (Ofsted, 2020). Remote provision and pupil engagement improved in the UK during the second lockdown in 2021 compared with the first, with live lessons being more prevalent across primary (49%) and secondary schools (78%) during this time (Nelson et al., 2021). In January 2021, 68% of teachers reported that every pupil could take part in at least one online live lesson daily, compared with 17% in May 2020 (Tapp, 2021b). In NI, indications of how schools coped was provided by Education and Training Inspectorate surveys (Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) Northern Ireland, 2021) in all sectors of the school system, based on data collected in January and February 2021. Ninety-two per cent of primary schools claimed to be using online platforms, but only 42% for live lessons.

Twice as many teachers reported that at least three quarters (77%) of learners engaged with their work in January 2021, compared with just 39% in Spring 2020 (Tapp, 2021a). Higher numbers submitted work, with teachers reporting a rise from 42% to 55% (Nelson et al., 2021).

Effectiveness of remote learning

The OECD (2020) summarised evidence from before the pandemic regarding the effectiveness of online learning on pupils’ performance. Providing access to digital technologies does not necessarily lead to better academic results (Escueta et al., 2017); many studies have reported effects of the impact of introducing technology for learning, ranging from negative (Angrist & Lavy, 2002; Leuven et al., 2007), to neutral (Fairlie & Robinson, 2013), to debatable (Checchi et al., 2019). Petrie et al. (2020) reported that collaborative and cooperative forms of learning are restricted when teaching remotely, even more so in practical and performative subjects (Petrie et al., 2020).

Research during the pandemic showed that teacher–pupil engagement was a challenge. Overall, pupils and teachers report that teachers, not able to move around the classroom and directly talk with students, created a barrier to effective communication (Ofsted, 2021). Peer and teacher discussions and feedback were reduced, or in some cases, did not occur during remote learning. In one survey, pupils reported that they would have liked more feedback from teachers (Child Poverty Action Group, 2020). In another, teachers said that they were in regular contact with, on average, 60% of their pupils during the first lockdown (Lucas et al., 2020). This comprised: setting tasks, delivering live lessons, checking in with learners and providing feedback. Generally, though, most learners (78%) reported they were happy with how their school engaged immediately following school closures (Yeeles et al., 2020). Results from a survey conducted by Flynn et al. (2021) illustrate that the most common forms of engagement adopted by Irish schools during the first lockdown were emails with instructions for work (Primary: 75.3%, Secondary: 67.5%), or for using apps or online platforms (Primary: 69.4%, Secondary: 74.2%). Asynchronous inputs were most common, with live online teaching experienced by 19% of primary and 58.5% of post-primary pupils. Flynn et al. (2021) recommended that for future school closures and remote teaching, teachers should seek meaningful peer–peer and teacher–pupil interaction, including collaborative learning and social engagement.

In Walsh et al’s (2020) report on Northern Irish parents’ and carers’ experiences of home schooling, the concerns of education authorities and unions regarding the use of digital resources and safeguarding of children and teachers during the first lockdown are highlighted. The authors explained that the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) [DENI] (2020) in England stated that: ‘there is no expectation that teachers should live stream or provide pre-recorded videos’ and the NASUWT (2020) stated that: ‘under no circumstances is it appropriate for schools to insist that teachers or school leaders make telephone calls or hold one-to-one videoconferences with children’. Schools in NI were encouraged to use the Education Authority’s (EA) C2K services to keep online teaching and learning secure. It may be that safeguarding concerns led to school leaders’ hesitancy to support staff to use live sessions, which in turn reduced the amount of online presence, interaction and engagement. The potential preference for asynchronous engagement may have been further advocated by EA’s Guidance to schools (e.g. Education Authority [EA], 2020) citing that recent research (Education Endowment Fund (EEF), 2020) ‘has indicated there is no clear difference between teaching in real time (synchronous teaching) and alternatives (asynchronous teaching)’.

Although research in higher education has identified effective online engagement techniques for students (McLoughlin et al., 2000), Flynn et al. (2021) recommended that research needs to be done to support school-aged pupils, followed up by professional development for teachers.

Teachers’ ability to cover the curriculum was affected by remote teaching. Research (Lucas et al., 2020) shows that 80% of primary and secondary teachers (out of 1800 surveyed) reported that, up to May 2020, all or certain areas of the curriculum were being given less attention than in a typical learning year (Lucas et al., 2020). As the pace of remote teaching was slower than in a face-to-face class, there was less time to cover the curriculum.

Research has also shown that remote learning may impact more on the learning of certain groups of pupils resulting in poorer educational outcomes. A rapidly conducted research report by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (Armour et al., 2020) predicts that almost half of Australian primary and secondary students will have poorer attainment, if remote learning is continued for an extended period. The report notes that learners at particular risk of poorer learning outcomes included those: with English as an Additional Language; with special educational needs and disabilities; living in rural and remote areas or from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Lamb et al., 2020).

Factors affecting remote learning

Various factors moderate the effectiveness of remote learning. Teachers’ readiness and capability in using digital resources is an important factor (Lucas et al., 2020). Two surveys (in May, and June to July 2020) exploring teachers’ views about the difficulties of using technology found that, while 30% of teachers said that they did not need further training, 25% said they would (Brink et al., 2020; Menzies, 2020). Teachers reported that they needed training for: using technology (18%), organising online collaborative spaces for pupils (17%) and teaching online lessons (15%, Brink et al., 2020). Similar findings were reported from a survey in NI (McCaffrey-Lau et al., 2021) for the period from March to June 2020.

Resources available at home and family support are other factors which affect pupils’ ability to learn remotely. Teachers and leaders reported limited internet access being a significant issue for a quarter of students across England (Lucas et al., 2020; Sharp et al., 2020). Four per cent of pupils were estimated to have had no access to a digital device during the first lockdown (Benzeval et al., 2020). Senior leaders were concerned that a small percentage were using phones which are not as suitable for learning as a laptop owing to the smaller screen and the more limited ability to type (Andrew et al., 2020; Ofsted, 2021). Roulston et al. (2020) reported that 11% of parents surveyed in NI cited slow or no internet connection as a challenge during the first period of school closures and concluded that whilst the ‘potential for learners to use online resources and access online teaching varies from home to home, those poorest and in areas where broadband speeds are not sufficient for remote teaching and learning are at a significant disadvantage’ (p. 44).

The lack of structure, and screen limitations at home, were further factors affecting remote learning. Some pupils enjoyed the flexibility of online learning (Müller & Goldenberg, 2021), while others missed the lack of routine. Some learners said they were not motivated, while others, particularly girls, reported difficulty switching off outside normal school hours. Girls worked longer compared with boys (Impact Ed, 2020; NSPCC, 2020). Many pupils reported that their screen-time increase led to headaches, burnout and stress (Müller & Goldenberg, 2021).

Methodology

We now turn to consider what worked and what did not, and for which subjects, qualifications, or year groups. What was most effective in schools, and what needs to be done to support teachers in case of a future of remote schooling?

Data was drawn from in-depth qualitative case studies in five schools which included group interviews with teachers and pupils. The REBEL project research involved data collection, via interview, from parents, teachers and pupils in five schools; schools were selected as broadly representative of most types of school in NI, in a ‘purposive’ sample (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 89). Three primary schools are referred to as schools 1, 2 and 3, while the two post-primary schools are 4 and 5. All schools are co-educational, drawing pupils from diverse backgrounds; one serves a rural population; one was inner city and the third is in a predominantly middle-class catchment area. One of the two post-primary schools uses academic selection to admit pupils.

The schools represented a wide range of socio-economic disadvantage, measured in the percentage of children entitled to free school meals; one had 68% in this category while another had 4.5% (The average across all primary schools is 28.6%; in post-primary schools the figure is 13.7% in selective schools and 37.1% in non-selective schools (Department of Education (Northern Ireland), 2021)). The percentage of children identified as in need of additional learning support ranged from 24% of the school population to 3%. A summary of the core data for participating schools is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Core data on participating schools.

	School 1	School 2	School 3	School 4	School 5
Phase (Total Enrolment)	Primary (500)	Primary (400)	Primary (196)	Post-Primary (600)	Post-Primary (1394)
% FSM (relevant NI average)	68% (28.6%)	4.5% (28.6%)	14.8% (28.6%)	16% (37.1%)	13% (13.7%)
% SEN	24%	22%	21.9%	14%	3%
Number of Teachers Interviewed	3	2	2	2	2
Number of Parents Interviewed	3	2	2	2	2
Number of Pupils Interviewed	3	4	4	3	3

We invited teachers, parents and pupils to take part in online interviews so as to have three different perspectives. Appendix 1 shows the standard set of interview questions, which was adapted for the pupils. It also shows the correspondence between each of the three research questions and the interview question(s) through which it was investigated.

All three participant groups, in all five schools, were interviewed separately. A group interview was carried out with pupils as it was thought they may be stimulated by the others in the group to recall events they may have forgotten and were more likely to open up and participate than if they were interviewed on their own. Pupil participants were drawn from across the schools’ year groups. A similar process was followed for teachers and for parents.

We were investigating a complex phenomenon, and we could not guarantee that participating teachers, parents and pupils were fully representative. However, anonymity and confidentiality meant that all were able to express reservations or direct criticisms.

School willingness to participate in the study might not have happened if there had been serious problems in their provision of remote learning. To that extent, the schools were likely to present responses veering to the mean, or better. Nevertheless, the researchers’ ability to create a climate of trust with the interviewees resulted in a marked readiness to give a multi-faceted account of the experience of remote learning.

Steps were taken to meet stringent ethical approval requirements, as some of the participants were under the age of 18. Ethical approval included a clear statement that the researchers had no conflict of interest in the selection of schools, nor in data interpretation.

Interviews were conducted online, and data was transcribed for analysis using broad thematic headings for coding and classifying responses.

Findings and discussion

Key findings from the study are summarised in Table 2 and are presented and discussed below.

Table 2. Summary of findings.

Research Question Reference	Research Question	Findings	Evidence
1	What kinds of blended and online learning were provided by schools during the pandemic?	In the first phase, from March–June 2020, schools adopted emergency remote learning which was at times less structured than in the second lockdown	Schools 4,5
		Between June–December 2020, most schools prepared for a possible second lockdown by offering staff professional learning in ICT	School 3
		Between January–June 2021, most schools offered face-to-face learning for some pupils, and online, often synchronous learning for the other pupils at home	Schools 3,4
2	How effective was the provision of learning by schools?	Teacher presence in asynchronous teaching was less well developed than in synchronous mode, except in one school	School 5
		Synchronous online learning was prioritised for pupils most in need of support	School 3
		There was a greater recognition of the need for pastoral support	Schools 1,3 and 4
3	What factors facilitated or hindered engagement with remote learning?	A minority of pupils had poor internet provision at home	School 4
		Staff gained in ICT confidence during the pandemic and made steadily greater use of social interaction with pupils	School 1,3 and 4
		School leadership in anticipating future ICT needs, offering staff professional development was very important	School 1,3,4 and 5
		Regional support and direction from statutory and voluntary agencies facilitated remote learning e.g. through the provision of a centralised ICT structure for all schools, coordinated support for schools from the Department of Education, the Education Authority and the Education and Training Inspectorate as well as self-support groups for teachers	Analysis of circulars and school data

Research question 1: What kinds of blended and online learning were provided by schools during the pandemic?

Reflexive and redesigned learning and teaching during lockdown

Despite decades of a centralised digital managed service in NI, schools did not respond with consistency to the digital challenges necessitated by extended periods of closure. The online tools and the modality of teaching and learning were augmented during the pandemic with schools in this study eventually migrating to more harmonised, universal online platforms for learning during the second period of closure. Reflecting on lessons learned from the first closure it was clear in some schools that the sudden closure of schools had created a reflexive rather than a strategic response:

In the first lockdown it really was crisis mode. (School 5 – Teacher)

Some parents echoed the effects of this crisis response through what was characterised as a ‘lack of structure’, particularly at the beginning of the first lockdown. One parent (School 4) reported that the work for his children was received randomly in:

dribs and drabs and things were just dropped in when you got them … you had very few and then you had lots.

It was broadly acknowledged, in all five schools, that schools were – indeed society was – in an unprecedented situation, with one parent crystalising the views of many respondents saying:

I think there was an overriding feeling that we were in unchartered territory, that this wasn’t the norm, and that you had to cut people some slack to sort of adjust to it.

The key variables affecting efficacy were: the quality of information provided to parents about when classes were taking place; where the learning material could be located online; and how pupil work was to be uploaded for teacher feedback.

The time between the two periods of closure provided schools with an opportunity to regroup and strategically redesign their response to the return of remote teaching and learning. This period reflected the capacity of the schools to respond to what had happened, to plan for what might lie ahead and, crucially, to work with their staff. One teacher reported:

we were always aware that a [second] lockdown was looming. So, we constantly made sure that we were trained, up-to-date and we were confident and comfortable that if the lockdown returned, we’d be ready … and when it came at Christmas we were like, right, we’re ready for this, we know what we have to do! (School 3 – Teacher)

When schools closed again in January 2021, most schools were using Google Classroom or Office 365 with children aged eight and above. Seesaw was the preferred platform for younger primary school children. In contrast to the previous period, where only one of the schools used synchronous learning, all except one did so in the second lockdown from January to March 2021 which paved the way for a more strategically considered response to the forthcoming period of home schooling.

Mode matters – synchronicity – live online lessons

Synchronous lessons were preferred by both pupils and parents. The preference of the teachers participating in this research was less obvious. Pupils generally voiced a preference for synchronous learning, particularly if the task was in any way ambiguous or complex:

I prefer having the Zoom calls … especially with [two curriculum areas identified] and stuff like that so I could actually have it all explained to me, especially for subjects that I struggle with. (School 4 – Pupil)

because it was more explained, kind of, instead of like reading it yourself and having to read over and over it to understand it, you had a teacher there, kind of telling you what to do. You could ask questions if you were stuck in something, rather than wait for someone to reply on Google Classroom or anything. (School 4 – Pupil)

However, the pupils did concede that some of their classmates had challenges in maintaining access to synchronous lessons:

some people who live out more in country, they don’t have as good Wi-Fi out there, so they wouldn’t be able to do the live lessons really. (School 4 – Pupil)

For parents, the real-time, teacher-led activities enabled them to manage the challenges of remote teaching more effectively. One parent reported:

The sessions on Teams … . I really can’t highlight enough how brilliant they were because it meant for those two hours of the day [my son] was taken care of […] the workload was taken care of, which meant I was able to deal with my youngest son. (School 3 – Parent)

Research question 2: How effective was the provision of learning by schools?

The perceived primacy of live online synchronous interaction and the role of asynchronous offline learning

All pupils agreed that they could freely contact their teachers with queries for clarification on asynchronous tasks, generally by Private Message. One issue raised was the delay in getting responses, which left them frustrated and unable to make progress. One said that: ‘Some teachers took a few days to respond’, and this sometimes meant that ‘we would have been left to figure it out ourselves’.

Some teachers took a few days to respond’, and this sometimes meant that ‘we would have been left to figure it out ourselves.

Teacher presence in asynchronous learning was underdeveloped and lacking sufficient immediacy for many. In all five schools, the overwhelming verdict was that remote learning needed to have interaction between pupils and teachers, whether through live lessons, teachers responding in real-time to questions, phone calls or, if not, through teachers responding to work both asynchronously and promptly. One example of this kind of collaborative work came from a teacher describing how Jamboard software was used:

With Jamboard I could have multiple pupils all working live simultaneously and I could give immediate feedback to pupils, see where their misunderstandings were. I used it nearly all the time during live sessions but also during asynchronous learning. Their peers could comment on their work and the pupils loved it ‘cos they could use it on their phones. (School 5 – Teacher)

There was evidence suggesting that synchronous teaching was prioritised for pupils most in need of support. One pupil explained that they benefited from live sessions and reported on how the remainder of the school day would often be tailored to pupils’ individual needs:

Well, it was usually associated with your capability. So, if you really found maths straightforward, you would do it by yourself. If you struggle a little bit with maths, you would go and do a separate Teams call with your friends, to work through it. And then if you really find it hard, you would stay on the same call with the teacher and [s]he will work through it with you. (School 3 – Pupil)

Evidence before the pandemic suggested that there were no clear differences between synchronous and asynchronous learning in terms of educational outcomes (Education Endowment Fund EEF, 2020). However, the data here is very clear. Teachers’ skills are more fluent in developing ‘social and teacher presence’ during synchronous sessions.

Attendance, presence and engagement for all learners

As most schools transitioned to synchronous teaching and learning, the recording of pupil attendance while at home became more widespread. Form attendance across all subjects was used daily at the start, and a spreadsheet recorded pupil attendance. Phone calls were made to absent pupils’ homes to check their wellbeing. One teacher stated:

Parents and pupils quickly became aware that there was a process, and they weren’t forgotten about, that they were visible, and their progress was being monitored. It meant I could see across several subjects that this was a pattern of behaviour that needed to be addressed. Also, that contact was really important because the parents could then take action too.

School 1 regularly monitored pupil attendance of live lessons and followed up within 48 hours with enquiries to parents on absence. Close partnership with parents meant that the school staff could report how pupils had 95% engagement with Seesaw and 89% engagement with (Microsoft) Teams.

Monitoring meant an honest recognition of children struggling with their engagement. In school 3, for example, one teacher commented:

during the previous lockdown, learning for children of disadvantaged backgrounds was limited. We found that they weren’t participating at all because, firstly they struggled with their ICT literacy, but also, they are the ones who need to be in school, having the direction, having the focus, maybe they didn’t have the support at home, or the understanding at home to help them. So, this [second] lockdown, we targeted those children, and we invited those children into school, to ensure that there could still have learning happening … because if they were at home, nothing was happening.

In school 2, there was no live teaching in lockdown 2. Of course, virtual attendance at synchronous lessons is no guarantee of engagement. As noted, ‘digitally native students were adept at feigning connection without engaging in actuality’ (Ewing & Cooper, 2021, p. 46). One researcher amassed recommendations for teachers including embedded pastoral care, increased opportunities to connect learners with each other and creating small groups or pairs of students to work together on tasks, all aimed at reducing feelings of exclusion and invisibility (Bond, 2020, p. 214). Suggestions for asynchronous support included using platforms for sharing experiences among the students and the teacher (Foti, 2020).

Research question 3: What factors facilitated or hindered engagement with remote learning?

Opportunities for social interaction

Personal interaction between staff and pupils as well as between pupils themselves benefits learning. In school 4, this was encapsulated in a more explicit level of pastoral support. Between the two lockdowns pupils who were still self-isolating were contacted by form teachers. When the second lockdown began, all form teachers established daily morning online classes using Google Classroom, sometimes synchronous, sometimes asynchronous, which consisted of an inspirational thought, or a ‘thought for the day’ and quizzes and competitions. As one member of staff put it:

pastorally, we really tried to ‘up it’ this time.

In schools 1, 3 and 4, the staff found a compromise involving a mix of real-time and asynchronous contact. Crucially, they came to see the vital importance of social interaction as an essential part of online learning. One teacher in school 1, with relatively little prior experience of remote learning, said:

my day started at nine o’clock, my children met online, and we had our morning greetings, everybody got a chance to come on and say hello, and then we just got stuck into the work for the day, so I was able to share my screen and we talked about what we were doing in maths.

A teacher in the non-selective secondary school (school 4) also commented on her experiences of using Google Classroom to connect with all pupils, including those who were found it difficult to motivate themselves to work, especially independently:

it just worked for us as a school to keep in touch with the pupils. You know, give them a little bit of support … maybe pupils who didn’t have as much support at home that they knew there was a teacher at the other end of the Google Classroom that we could send a message to, so that was really helpful.

Pupils for whom remote learning was not working:

were invited into school after a period of time, alongside key worker children, for a couple of days per week, [allowing] the duty teacher or form head … to get them organised and then they were often more confident to go home and access remote learning opportunities.

A more surprising reason for greater success in the second lockdown was a move away from support confined to academic work. While the primacy of live interaction was recognised, many developed pastoral programmes – opportunities to meet as small groups with a tutor responsible for pupils’ pastoral care – as an everyday component of the learners’ experience, helping them to adapt to a new way of learning and retaining links with their teachers and classmates.

School leadership

Considerable evidence suggested that school leadership had a large part to play in the success of online learning, specifically in the development of the skills and attitudes of teachers. Leadership was vital to an approach that ensured teacher presence and maximised engagement. School 1 developed a whole-school approach to remote learning through a comprehensive ‘remote learning policy’ which was explicit about expectations and standards for all. At its heart was a means of providing all remote learners with access to hardware. Further, the school ICT technician was mobilised to address technical problems in homes. Many principals ensured a strong middle leadership; ICT leaders and others were provided with support to develop and implement effective remote learning policies (schools 1, 3, 4 and 5).

In the most successful instances, leaders helped their schools to develop from a relatively and understandably turbulent first lockdown, by establishing structures and procedures which allowed the second lockdown to be more productive. The best leaders recognised and acknowledged those aspects which had not worked so well at first, to prepare effectively for the second lockdown. For example, it was recognised that those with specific learning needs required additional support that had not been initially well developed (schools 3 and 4). Prescient leadership had insured that, in four of the schools, considerable investment in ICT hardware, software and staff development, made prior to the pandemic, led to a less steep learning curve in responding to the pressures posed by emergency remote learning. Staff, pupils and parents in those schools were more likely to assimilate strategies that placed ICT at the forefront of the schools’ blended learning approach.

In some cases (School 4), staff identified the pandemic as a catalyst for staff development. One commented that ‘must-do is a great master’, and another remarked that the period between the lockdowns allowed teachers to develop further their skills in online teaching with ‘everybody pulling together’, as staff mentored each other and shared ideas, software and approaches to learning. This led to more synchronous teaching and learning and the more effective implementation of technology to support learners during the second period. School leaders played an important role in forging closer relationships with parents, ensuring a greater understanding of the respective roles of the school and the parent, and the strategic direction of the school. More refined parent–teacher relationships facilitated learning and provided support both for learner and parent.

Regional support and direction

Statutory agencies played an important role in supporting schools to adapt to lockdown. During the first lockdown, in June 2020 the Department of Education (DENI) advised schools to consider ‘engaging with pupils through e-learning platforms rather than … hard copy or emailed resources’ (DENI, 2020, p. 3). This advice was supported by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) for primary and pre-schools (Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) Northern Ireland, 2020). The duration of the first lockdown was uncertain, which may have militated against a focus on teachers’ skill development to adopt technologies which may have been novel to some. During the second lockdown there was greater consistency across staff in working interactively with pupils, the potential of which was recognised by many school leaders.

Support from statutory agencies may have helped schools in the initial lockdown and more guidance was provided for the second. By 2021, the emphasis had changed, with the realisation that disruption to education was more enduring and potentially disruptive than initially anticipated. The DENI Circular of January 2021 strengthened the earlier advice, encouraging schools to consider e-learning, to an explicit endorsement of it:

The Department recommend that all schools aim to engage with pupils on an ongoing basis through the wide range of e-learning platforms available rather than provide hard copy or emailed resources alone.

They did, however, add the caveat ‘if at all possible’ (Department of Education (Northern Ireland), 2021, p. 5). A follow-up letter to school principals on 9 February 2021 (‘Effective Practice in Remote Learning’) reassured them that:

There is no expectation of live lessons or of a minimum duration of lessons each day.

The Education Authority also provided guidance to schools. Building on the reflective practice articulated six years earlier in the Learning Leaders Strategy (Department of Education Northern Ireland [DENI], 2015), this EA website was designed to support teachers through 2020–21 by providing access to learning resources and opportunities to partake in professional learning sessions. The DENI also, crucially, helped to address the digital divide by distributing, by June 2021, 25,000 devices to disadvantaged families and vulnerable learners. Thus far, evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy, and the degree of its success in ensuring that learners were able to access online learning, have been limited.

Grassroots skill development and teacher professional learning

Notwithstanding the crucial role of statutory agencies in supporting teachers, there was widespread skill development through grassroots activity. The situation fostered collegiality including mentoring and skill development after the initial period of dislocation and uncertainty. Teachers set up self-support groups, such as BLENDED NI and NI Teachers’ Collaborate. While findings elsewhere report the importance of informal support groups (Gouseti, 2021), this would appear to be more widespread in this instance and with a loose coordination supported by social media. Bingimlas (2009) suggested that the three major factors impeding teachers’ integration of ICT into their practice were ‘lack of confidence, lack of competence, and lack of access to resources’ (Bingimlas, 2009, p. 243). While the last of these may have diminished in importance over the last decade, at least in some parts of the world, the first two impediments may be amenable to being addressed through mutual support networks. The potential of these support networks has long been recognised (Flores et al., 2007; Lang et al., 2017), but they may be becoming more important particularly precipitated by the pandemic.

Many schools responded to the first period of remote teaching with mixed success; there were insufficient skills for successful e-learning. The second lockdown, in contrast, was characterised by greater systemic staff preparedness. With the support of statutory bodies, school leaders developed collaboration enabling the implementation of agreed approaches. A second lockdown was suspected to be unavoidable; measures were put in place to develop the resilience of staff skills. Those schools which had invested in infrastructure and staff development were more prepared than those where such developments were a lower priority.

In all five schools, the competence and confidence of teachers to use digital technologies was a key factor in supporting remote learning. Confidence was built through training sessions on both technical and pedagogic aspects. In school 4, teacher learning stimulated a collegial culture, sharing ideas and insights:

It was actually just so lovely to see certain staff, when they found something that they thought was fantastic, they were straightaway, just sharing it, you know, to the whole school … we had a whole-school Google Drive area that you’re able to just post on and comment on.

This inflection point for teachers’ confidence and competence with digital technologies must be nurtured to guard against the ongoing shocks and aftershocks of the pandemic. These include the protection of education financing, strengthening the resilience of education systems for equitable and sustainable development and the reimagining of education and acceleration of positive change in teaching and learning (United Nations (UN), 2020).

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggest that a combination of a strong ICT managed service available at no cost to all schools, coordinated guidance and support from government agencies was important in helping schools to transition from emergency measures to providing a flexible, hybrid mode of learning. Also, the role of effective leadership in schools in enabling schools to make that move was key. This finding appears to support other studies in terms of the importance of strong school leadership (Elistiowati et al., 2021; Pambudi & Gunawan, 2020). Government investment in ICT meant that moving learning partly, and in some cases entirely, online, was a realistic option not commonly available in other jurisdictions and, in some instances, preparation was lacking (Ermenc et al., 2021). One significant feature of effective practice was the capacity of some schools to make sustained contact with pupils either through real-time teaching, phone calls, active intervention and feedback and, in a few cases, by contributing to online asynchronous discussions.

In the longer term, the readiness of teachers to react quickly to the trajectory of the pandemic may prove to be an important asset (Anoba & Cahapay, 2020). For example, a minority of schools in this study have explored the potential for hybrid learning, where staff were simultaneously teaching some pupils on site while connecting remotely with those at home.

Some research, across the island of Ireland, suggests:

a need for a coherent set of standards on what constitutes effective remote teaching and learning and with uncertainty relating to how long the COVID-19 pandemic will last, what actually constitutes effective hybrid teaching and learning. (Roulston et al., 2020, p. 46)

As schools moved into a new emerging from the pandemic, new challenges are apparent such as the pressure on schools to remain open for pupils who can attend, while offering a consistent level of quality learning for those who continue to have to work from home. The REBEL project is currently exploring different ways that hybrid learning can be used to support schools and those working in higher education. Additionally, the project tests the capacities and affordance of Hyflex learning (Beatty, 2007, 2019) within higher education alongside implications for post-primary teaching and learning.

Limitations

A methodological problem with data gathering is the risk of respondents seeking to give the best account they can of the actions they took (Chew-Graham et al., 2002). In NI, this risk is compounded by an open enrolment policy for schools which can mean that they are in competition with each other for pupils. To put it unambiguously, school funding is based in part, on the number of pupils enrolled in a school; a possible consequence is a reluctance by staff to acknowledge problems or to play down the scale of difficulties encountered in each situation such as how the school responded to the pandemic. We cannot therefore make claims that this study is representative of all schools in NI.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Samuel Taggart

Samuel Taggart is an experienced classroom practitioner and teacher educator in Technology and Design Education at Ulster University, Northern Ireland. His research interests focus on the use of educational technology to support learning and teaching, particularly within Initial Teacher Education. Working with examination authorities, charitable Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) groups and local organisations, he aims to promote greater awareness of the educational, technological and engineering challenges and opportunities associated with the fourth industrial revolution.

Barbara Skinner

Barbara Skinner is a Senior Lecturer in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) in the School of Education at Ulster University, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, and has experience in leading research and consultancy teams. Dr Skinner’s research findings have been published in key international journals including Educational Review, Journal of Education for Teaching, Classroom Discourse, English Language Teaching Journal and Journal of Studies in International Education. Dr Skinner’s work explores issues concerning working parents and home-schooling during COVID, teachers’ mental health, teacher education, higher education pedagogy and intercultural competence. Projects have included managerialism and teachers’ professional identity, the EAL training needs of initial teacher trainees in Northern Ireland, cross-cultural partnerships for international and home students; cultural diversity in primary schools; embedding the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for language proficiency in online language teaching materials and the assessment of non-native speaking student teachers’ practicum.

Stephen Roulston

Stephen Roulston is a Research Fellow at Ulster University, previously the Course Director for PGCE Geography. He spent 20 years teaching, largely Geography and Geology, in a range of schools in Northern Ireland, joining Ulster University as a Lecturer in 2009. He has pioneered the use of ICT in supporting learning, particularly the use of GIS. He has also conducted research in education in divided societies, most recently as the lead for the Transforming Education project. This work aims to highlight aspects of education in Northern Ireland, a divided society emerging from conflict, which appear to be ineffective, wasteful or socially divisive.

Roger Austin

Roger Austin is Emeritus Professor in the School of Education at Ulster University in Northern Ireland. He has been a pioneer in the field of using technology to build community cohesion through inter-school links and has published extensively on this since 1988. The most recent work, published in late 2020, is Blended and Online Learning for Global Citizenship, co-authored with Bill Hunter. He has led two ground-breaking projects on the island of Ireland, the European Studies Programme and the Dissolving Boundaries Programme which used blended learning to foster intercultural education between teachers and pupils.

Appendix 1:

Interview questions

For teachers

RQ1:

What kinds of blended learning and online learning were provided by schools during the pandemic?

• What does the term blended learning mean for you?

  • How did this operate in your school?

  • Does your school have an explicit policy on Blended Learning, or an agreement within staff and parents?

  • If yes, what are the main ideas?

  • To what extent did you develop your own approach in implementing remote/blended learning?

  • To what extent did you collaborate with staff with respect to Blended Learning? What is the focus of this collaboration?

  • What examples of blended learning resources/communications/artefacts do you have available? (prompts; pupil/teacher work stored on VLEs like Google Classroom (chatroom conversations, recordings of sessions, marked homework, students’ work, communications to parents in ParentMail app).

RQ2:

How effective were they in schools?

• What do you think are the main advantages/disadvantages of Blended learning in your school?

• Is there material for minority groups which is helpful for their inclusion in Blended Learning? Who is providing/producing this material? Is there a specific school policy on this? Or an agreement with staff? What are its main ideas?

• If you think of Blended Learning: Are students from varying socio-economic backgrounds reacting and participating differently to Blended Learning? Is there a specific policy on this? Or an agreement with staff? What are its main ideas?

• If you think of Blended Learning: Are students from different migration backgrounds reacting and participating differently to Blended Learning?

• Have you found that online courses have supported your professional development? In the future, do you anticipate blended learning being a key aspect of future staff development?

• Which aspects of blended learning do you think the school will retain when students return to school? (prompts; online assessment, use of asynchronous discussions for work outside the classroom etc)

RQ3:

What factors facilitated or hindered effective teacher and pupil engagement?

• What did you like about it? What did you dislike about it?

• What factors made it easy to implement remote learning?

• What factors made it difficult to implement?

• What sort of resources are available to help you implement remote learning?

• Who is providing/producing this material?

  • What guidance did you receive from senior management team in your school about how to develop blended learning?

  • Are there other support measures (e.g. professional development, consultants etc.) which are helpful for the enhancement of Blended Learning? Who is providing/producing support measures?

For parents

RQ1:

What kinds of blended learning and online learning were provided by schools during the pandemic?

• What does the term blended learning mean for you?

• What were your experiences of your child’s remote/Blended learning?

• What did you like about remote/Blended learning?

• What didn’t you like?

RQ2:

How effective were they in schools?

• What are the good sides and the awkward sides of Blended Learning in your school?

• Which aspects of blended learning would be worth retaining in the future when schools return to F2F teaching for all students?

RQ3:

What factors facilitated or hindered effective teacher and pupil engagement?

• What factors helped their remote/blended learning?

• What factors hindered their remote learning?

• What did you like about it? What did you dislike about it?

• Were you able to offer your views on what you liked or disliked about blended/remote learning to the teachers/school? Is it easy or difficult to do this?

• Are teachers interested in what you have to say? Do teachers respect what you have to say? Is your voice included in decision making as it relates to blended learning? Can you give an opinion on what can be improved?

• Do you feel that the relationship between school and parents has changed because of the use of blended learning? If so in what ways? Are there aspects of this that should be continued when pupils are fully back in school?

For school pupil group interviews

Introduce yourselves – how old are you? What year group are you in?

RQ1:

What kinds of blended learning and online learning were provided by schools during the pandemic?

• What does the term blended learning mean for you?

• What was your experience of blended learning?

RQ2:

How effective were they in schools?

• What did you like about it?

• What didn’t you like about it?

• What are the good sides and the awkward sides of Blended Learning in your school?

  • Which aspects of blended learning would be worth retaining in the future when schools return to face-to-face teaching for all students?

RQ3:

What factors facilitated or hindered effective teacher and pupil engagement?

• What things made it easy?

• What things made it more difficult?

• Do you feel that your voice is included in decision making and planning in your schools?

• Were you able to offer your views on what you liked or disliked about blended/remote learning? Is it easy or difficult to do this?

• Are teachers interested in what you have to say? Do teachers respect what you have to say?