In-Person vs.

Remote Instruction: An Examination of the Effectiveness of

Writing Instruction In the Classroom Pre-Covid and Online During Covid Restrictions

Victoria Minardi

EDLP 6040-801

Dr. Jolene Battitori

July 2, 2021
 1

Abstract

The research and analysis presented here compares the data on writing instruction and overall

student achievement at the high school level Pre-Covid during in-person instruction with data

from the Covid pandemic, when only remote learning experiences occurred. This paper examines

SGO scores based upon writing instruction and assessments, as well as overall student

performance presented in the form of their passing or failing their English courses for the year.

The years examined here include assessment scores from the 2018-2019 school year, prior to the

pandemic, and scores from the 2020-2021 school year, when all instruction was remote for these

students. The parents of the students involved in this study opted for their children to attend

school entirely remotely, online for the whole school year, as opposed to having a hybrid

schedule, which was also available for students during this time. This school district created a

grouping of students entitled, “School #1”, where students only attended classes via Google

Meets and completed coursework through Google Classrooms, as well as other online platforms

for instruction. No in-person instruction was made available to the students in this study from

2020-2021. All classroom instruction occurred virtually. These educational experiences will be

compared to the educational experiences of students who attended high school in-person prior to

the global pandemic.

A Comparison Between the SGO Results

In the creation of SGO’s, Student Growth Objectives, teachers set goals for student

achievement, which ideally informs the learning objectives for a particular set of students for the

upcoming year by highlighting the needs of these students. Baseline data is obtained using

preliminary assessments prior to the start of instruction in an effort to “meet students where they

are” academically and in terms of their skill levels. SGO’s focus on specific standards for
 2

achievement so that these goals are as precise as possible. The SGO’s analyzed in this study

center upon writing instruction. (AchieveNJ: Student Growth Objectives (SGOs), 2021) For both

of the years analyzed in this study, the following standards, obtained from a pdf available on the

New Jersey Department of Education website, were set as goals for student academic growth:

NJSLSA.W4. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development,

organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

NJSLSA.W10. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection,
and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of
tasks, purposes, and audiences.(New Jersey Student Learning Standards: English
Language Arts, 2021)

Baseline scores for these standards were taken from essay writing assignments given in

September. Once the scores were collected, students were divided into three groupings based

upon the scores they earned. The results of this can be seen in Figure 1 below.

SGO BASELINE DATA / THE STARTING POINT

Grades on Writing Assessments Given in September Prior To Instruction Figure 1.
2018-2019 Grade Number of 2020-2021 Grade Number of
Groupings Range Students in Groupings Range Students in
Group Group

LOW 0-84 9 LOW 0-50 14

MEDIUM 85-94 24 MEDIUM 51-75 20

HIGH 95-100 12 HIGH 76-100 11

TOTAL 45 TOTAL NUMBER OF 45

NUMBER OF STUDENTS
STUDENTS

Upon examining this data, it is evident that between 2019 and 2020 scores dropped dramatically,

especially in the HIGH and LOW groupings. The LOW group in 2020-2021 is 20 points below

the passing grade of 70, whereas in 2018-2019 the LOW group reaches up to a grade of 84, a B.
 3

Also, it is important to note that the HIGH group in 2018-2019 represents an A+ , while the

HIGH group in 2020-2021 spans from a grade of a C to an A+. According to this data, one can

easily deduce that there is a significant decline in achievement levels of students in their writing

skills from before the pandemic to during it. I have purposefully chosen to exclude the years

2019-2020 in order to highlight the effect the pandemic and remote instructional methods seem

to have had on student performance, since quarantining began during this time. The exact

reasons for this decline is speculative though. There are a number of factors which may have

caused this decline, which will be explored later in this paper.

Data regarding the reaching of SGO Target Scores is also interesting and informative to

observe and consider. Below in Figure 2, the number of students reaching the targeted SGO

scores is presented.

SGO RESULTS WITH TARGET SCORES Figure 2.

2018-2019 2018-2019 2018-2019 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021
Groupings Target Number of Groupings Target Number of
Scores Students Who Scores Students Who
Reached Reached
Target Scores Target Scores

LOW 70 9/9 LOW 70 3/14

MEDIUM 83 14/24 MEDIUM 83 15/20

HIGH 90 12/12 HIGH 90 11/11

TOTAL 45 TOTAL 45
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
STUDENTS STUDENTS

The most significant scores to analyze are in the LOW groupings. Only 3 students in the

2020-2021 school year reached the passing target grade of a 70, which is understandable since

the highest Baseline score obtained by students in that grouping was a 50. Based upon this data,

the students who responded the least to online instruction were those in the LOW group. These
 4

students, who most likely struggled with their writing skills before online only instruction, were

greatly hindered by the online only model of teaching. Again, the exact reasons for this are

unknown, but can be speculated based upon other research on this topic.

A Look At Final Grades For The Course

Lastly, it is important to consider whether or not this data aligns with other aspects of

English/Language Arts instruction other than writing. Therefore, final grades for students in my

classes during both the 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 school years were obtained. For the sake of

simplicity, student scores were tallied and categorized according to each student’s passing or

failing of the course for the year. Below in Figure 3, the results are presented.

FINAL GRADES FOR EACH YEAR AS PASS OR FAIL

Using a Sample of 79 Students
2018-2019 2020-2021 PASSED 2018-2019 FAILED 2020-2021
PASSED ENGLISH COURSE ENGLISH COURSE FAILED
ENGLISH FOR THE YEAR FOR THE YEAR ENGLISH
COURSE FOR COURSE FOR
THE YEAR THE YEAR

69 50 10 29

Here a larger number of student grades were analyzed so that the differences in performance

could be highlighted to a greater degree. The failure rate between 2018-2019 and 2020-2021

almost tripled. Based upon this information alone, it can be deduced that online only learning is

not beneficial for everyone, especially for those who struggle academically. On a larger scale,

this has been noted by the administrators in my district to such an extent that they altered the

daily school schedule. In order to offer students opportunities to make up lost credits due to

course failures, a rotating drop schedule was adopted, so that periods throughout the day can be

given to students in order to retake a failed course or to retrieve credits via an online learning
 5

platform. The second alternative seems counterintuitive given the data, however those students

will have teachers with them in-person to offer the assistance and/or the motivation they may

need.

Why Did This Happen: An Examination of Other Studies

There is much speculation on the parts of teachers, administrators, students, and parents

about why remote instruction was ineffective for many students, especially those whose usual

academic performance is average or below average. In fact, in response to the failing scores of

students during the first two marking periods in School #1, during the 2020-2021 school year,

administrators in my district attempted and succeeded in transferring many students from remote

only to hybrid instruction. In fact, the number of students enrolled in my School#1 courses

began at an overwhelming to 200, but with these transfers was eventually reduced to about 150

students. It would be interesting to see if these students were positively affected by these

transfers, however that data isn’t available at this time. Retrieving and analyzing that data would

be a compelling study. It would also be fascinating to observe and analyze how those students in

the HIGH groupings performed overall in all of their courses, when given remote only

instruction. Those students enrolled in Honors and AP classes usually require little teacher

assistance to grasp new concepts and are traditionally academically motivated, therefore it would

be compelling to investigate how or if they were affected by remote only instruction.

The question remains, why was remote only instruction so unsuccessful for many

students? Experts and academics have theories. According to Paul Feldman, “Students have

found it quite difficult to maintain engagement watching a ‘Zoom’ lecture, we have seen great

examples of lecturers and students using the ‘chat’, and Q&A functions...”(Feldman, 2021)

Student engagement was definitely an issue for online only instruction. Although it was
 6

encouraged, greatly encouraged, for students to turn on their cameras during class meetings, this

was the exception for most students, rather than the norm. Myself and my colleagues struggled

to inspire students to show themselves on camera, but since regular attendance during class

meetings was also an issue, we essentially gave up the struggle. We decided to focus upon

involving those who attended in chats or Q&A functions, as Felman mentions. This practice

seemed to effectively engage those students in the HIGH group, as well as the seemingly more

social students who just wanted to talk.

One particular study looked at the effects of positive reinforcement given to students by

teachers and parents, which when implemented regularly during at home, online instruction,

improved student motivation and thus academic performance. The researchers write:

During school from home, students need positive reinforcement both from parents
and teachers to improve or trigger their positive behavior...The findings indicated
that during school from home, teachers tended to give less verbal positive
reinforcement to students...The preliminary study shows that during school from
home, students complained of being saturated because they felt bored to be at
home, got too much task from their teachers, and they often found unclear instruction
from teachers related to their task...students felt stressed undergoing the school from
home programs...the reinforcement given to students can increase
student motivation.(R. et al., 2021)

During this time of online instruction, a lack of motivation was definitely a factor in their poor

academic performance. Absenteeism rates were high for these students. Also, without being

in-person, it is difficult for teachers to supply this much needed positive reinforcement,

especially with class sizes being much larger than the norm in this virtual environment. As for

receiving positive reinforcement from home, many of the parents of my students work full-time.

High school students were left home on their own, sometimes with younger siblings to look after.

Parents were unable to provide positive reinforcement regarding their child’s school assignments,

to encourage them to participate actively in their online classes, or to oversee their child’s
 7

participation or even attendance. Logically speaking, these factors most likely contributed to the

poor academic performance.

A different study calculated how involved students were or were not in their learning

processes while going to school from home. The results of this are discouraging to say the least.

Close to one-half of all parents surveyed are concerned with the state of education,
as one survey found 22% of students spent less than one hour per week, with the
average being 4.2 hours. The radical change produced questionable results, with
60% of students participating regularly, approximately one-third of students missing,
and two-thirds to three-fourths of teachers concerned about student engagement and
learning.(Coker, 2020)

According to this information, many students were spending very little time on their studies and

just less than half of them did not attend class regularly. If such an enormous amount of class

time is missed, or if during class students are unengaged, then it makes sense as to why students

would find instructions difficult to comprehend and assignments difficult to complete. On these

same notes, a recent case study in Chicago, IL retrieved the following facts:

Remote learning, for most school districts, was a spectacular failure. Chicago already
suffered from absentee problems, with 24% of students chronically absent.
Chronically absent means absent for 10% or greater. When COVID-19 hit, Chicago
moved to online and remote learning. While Chicago stated 77% of students logged
on, only 85% completed at least one assignment per week. Worse yet, 15% did not log on
at all, and the rates for special education students were even lower. (Coker, 2020)

According to this information, not only did students struggle with class attendance, they also

struggled to complete their assignments. This was a fact which I had also noticed in my classes.

As a result, in order to meet my students' needs, assignment time frames had to be extremely

flexible, and ultimate due dates for assignments were nonexistent. In the past, I had found that in

order to be culturally responsive to my students, I had to extend deadlines and timeframes for

their assignments and assessments. By doing this, I had noticed that many more students
 8

completed their work and grew in their skill sets. Their grades improved too. I had similar

policies during remote only instruction, except that I found myself accepting more and more late

work than usual. If I had not done this, then the course failure rate would have been a lot

higher...a lot higher.

The struggles of teachers and students during the Covid-19 pandemic and remote

instruction is reflected in all of the literature that I’d surveyed on the subject. One positive

takeaway from these experiences is the undeniable idea that human connection is important to

the teaching and learning process, as are the practices of social and emotional support. One

researcher writes, “Even teachers can take the daily routine for granted as they go through the

motions some days, forgetting how powerful each day that a child steps foot in our class is a day

to grow them and ourselves: mentally, emotionally, alone and as a team.”

Conclusions

Teachers’ jobs are safe. For a time, with the acclimation of technology-driven resources, there

may have been fears about computers replacing teachers. Presumably, given all of the

data-proven online learning platforms, websites, and programs, it seemed that the future could

entail students attending school without ever having to leave their homes. One surprising gift of

knowledge provided by the global pandemic is that this system would never suffice. As a result

of online only learning remotely from home, student attendance rates dropped dramatically,

student grades declined, and student motivation depreciated. Overall, online learning, for high

school students in this instance, was an unsuccessful endeavor for most. However, there is still a

question as to whether or not traditionally high achieving students were as affected by the online

learning environment. The study here focused solely on college prep classes, excluding students

on the Honors level, who are often more academically motivated. Further research should be
 9

done on this topic. Also, in order to further the investigation here, I would suggest surveying

these students involved in the online only, School #1, by having them complete a questionnaire

regarding their school experiences over this past year. Hearing from the students themselves and

analyzing those results would definitely shed more light on this topic.
 10

References

AchieveNJ: Student Growth Objectives (SGOs). (2021). State of New Jersey Department of

Education. https://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/objectives.shtml

Coker, D. (2020). The Canary in the Mine: Remote Learning in the Time of COVID-19. Journal

of Curriculum and Teaching, 9(3), 76. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v9n3p76

Feldman, P. (2021). Digital Transformation In Education: From Vision to Practice During The

Pandemic. Research-Publishing.Net, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.49.1216

New Jersey Student Learning Standards: English Language Arts. (2021). State of New Jersey

Department of Education. https://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/2016/ela/

R., M., Yusri, Y., Sinring, A., & Aryani, F. (2021). Assessing Verbal Positive Reinforcement of

Teachers during School from Home in the Covid-19 Pandemic Era. International Journal

of Instruction, 14(2), 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14259a

Woods, A., Pettit, S., & Pace, C. (2020). Quaranteaching in the Time of Covid-19: Exemplar

From a Middle Grades Virtual Classroom. Becoming: Journal of the Georgia Middle

School Association, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/becoming.2020.310103

11