In this week's readings and discussions, we considered objectivist vs. constructivist education and where our own K-12 learning and professional experiences fell on that continuum. I reflected that my most memorable learning experiences were those in which I was immersed in the domain in which we were studying: role playing a farmer in a Great Depression era stock market, visiting a local cemetery with Latin-inscribed tombstones, wading in mud as a marine ecologist, and more. Most of these experiences required collaboration, socialization, and "building" my own understanding of the content. I could not read a textbook to get the same quality experience.
A constructivist education requires interactions, cognitive presence, and social presence for meaningful learning in a physical and online space. My choice in quality elements for my group's Quality Model for K-12 Online Learning were ones that championed open communication, reflection, and flexibility. It is these types of elements that support building, over transfer, of meaningful learning.
One of the main challenges that I have noticed across Module 1 and 2 readings is that everyone, who developed a model for online teaching and/or online design for learning, thought that theirs was the right model, framework, continuum, etc. I read about the history of quality model development in Module 1 and thought that this piece of information was interesting. Even now, as models have continued to evolve, there is debate about whose model is the best.
In constructing a quality model for K-12 online learning, I appreciated that I had access to many models as examples of what was out there. The iNACOL standards, now the National Standards for Quality, are updated regularly--the third edition was released in 2019--and are inclusive of online teaching, programs, and courses. In a way, these standards are constructivist in nature: the standards are changed as what we know about quality online learning changes. Such a framework also serves as a guide for stakeholders who wish to develop or measure quality in online learning.
The main gaps that I noticed in the iNACOL standards were specificity in the dimensions of interaction, but also in stakeholders beyond the learner's direct educational experience. We added Instructor-Stakeholder, Instructor-Interface, and Instructor-Co-Instructor Interactions to our model to encompass interactions that did not directly relate to how the learner was engaging with meaningful learning. It is not so simple as to guarantee that the learner has access to a quality learning interface or content. What are the interactions--the reciprocal events--that will take place on the learner's behalf, but also from stakeholders?
The tools we have used in EDIT 762 thus far--Voki and Cacoo--served to facilitate dimensions of interaction in an asynchronous online learning environment. I am wondering, however, if the outcome of using these tools were truly the type of interaction that was planned.
When I shared my Voki product to the Module 1 discussion group, I had the intention of interacting with other learners. Sharing was not a guarantee that other learners would watch my Voki and leave a comment on my discussion post. Voki has value as a tool that supports social presence in a virtual space, but there was limit for additional interaction.
Cacoo could support asynchronous collaboration and interaction as our group constructed our model for quality from scratch. There were Learner-Content interactions as we read each other's posts so as not to repeat any redundant information. There were Learner-Learner interactions if we used the commenting tool. We used color to represent our Social Presence in the document. Our Cacoo diagram had the possibility to change as our understanding of the elements of quality changed. As an exported PNG file, it became a page in our Annual Guide: a static representation of our combined knowledge.
Both tools afforded learners some degree of choice. We could choose how our Voki avatar looked, the background for the presentation, and how to record audio output. Although the Cacoo came with a suggested layout, our group technically could have changed how that looked. We chose to leave it in the format that was most like the quality model for higher education online learning, which we have examined in both Modules 1 and 2.
Offering either tool as a way to demonstrate meaningful learning is a necessary support in the online classroom. To give learners online content without a means to express mastery is like expecting me to know how to drive to California without an atlas. I know that California is located west of Virginia, but I will struggle to get there in a meaningful way without support. Both Voki and Cacoo supported some degree of interaction and expression of mastery of content in a meaningful way.