Topic three, “Equity and Access in K-12 Distributed (Online) & Open Learning Environments,” consisted of three different readings of all different modalities. The first: Basham, Blackorby, Stahl, & Zhang, L. (2018), is an academic article that explained the framework and reasoning behind the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). 

“A scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that-(A) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways, students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways, students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.”

(Basham, Blackorby, Stahl, & Zhang, L., 2018)

In this article, we learned that UDL has been around in education for two decades and created originally, to provide equal and effective inclusion for students with disabilities or diverse learning needs (Basham, Blackorby, Stahl, & Zhang, L., 2018). UDL is now a model designed for all learners, however, it still has the same ideals of providing equity for all learners in their education. In the article, the authors give us a variety of terms from research studies that give way to the idea of creating equity in an online classroom:

• Personalized learning: Patrick, Kennedy, and Powell (2013) state that personalized learning is equivalent to creating an environment where each learners’ inherent strengths, interests, and needs are prioritized. The circle of courage is mentioned in this statement as this encourages a sense of mastery towards the learner. 
• Blended learning: Christensen, Horn, and Staker (2013) define blended learning as a type of learning where students learn through online learning and over-time can manage the time,path, pace, and place over their learning. This provides a sense of independence from the circle of courage and allows students equity through having their learning fit the inherent needs of their choice. 
• Supplemental online courses: This type of online learning is given when students are unable to base on their schedule, age, or geographic location to take a certain course. In this case, instead of taking the course face-to-face students are allowed to take it instead online
• Competency/proficiency-based learning: Patrick et al., (2013) acknowledge the fact that students are more likely than not to be grouped in categories that have very little to do with their likes and knowledge. The system of grouping learners based on their age does not give in to the fact that many students are not cognitively at the same level as their age bracket. To create a sense of equity for the students: it would be more appropriate to group them by actual cognitive grade level.

The article also gives the reader some statistics around the current population enrolled in online learning and how these numbers relate to the diversity of the learners enrolled:

2.2 million students take complemental online courses

White students make up 75% of the current online students

There is an expected increase in traditionally marginalized populations within online settings

Less than 25% of online students are Hispanic, 13% are Black, 2% or less are Asian, and 1% of online students are Native American 

Students with disabilities make up 7.2% of online students

Students at or below the poverty level comprised 45% to 48% of online enrollment in contrast to making up 35% in face-to-face settings 

“Clearly the practice of K-12 education, in general, and the growing presence of online learning needs to become more  effective in supporting the strengths and addressing the weaknesses of the students for whom they are responsible.”

(Basham, Blackorby, Stahl, & Zhang, L., 2018)

The second reading by Kral, & Schwab (2012) is a more multimodal article that gives us a list of design principles that should be considered when building and facilitating a learning environment. These principles are a way for us to answer our blog guiding question as they work towards creating equity in the classroom and are created to provide equal opportunities for learners of all contexts. The real-life example the article gives us is of first nations in Australia where they put context to these principles. 

• Design Principle 1: Space young people control  
  • Sites where young people feel a sense of spatial control
  • Here, young adults not only have access to resources of a wide variety of learning
  • Having access to even the smallest power over technology increases a sense of confidence that extends to enacting decisions elated to difficult situations in everyday life (Mastery)
  • There is freedom for individual specializations to emerge

• Design Principle 2: A space for hanging out and “mucking around” 
  • “The digital bedroom” is one of the most vibrant kids of digital learning spaces for youth
  • Informal learning spaces such as media centers, youth centers, and libraries perform an important function as “communal digital bedrooms.”
  • Allow for engagement, develop skills, create media and increasingly take on professional and leadership roles 
  • In these spaces, ‘there is no right or wrong way’ for learning or participation, and everybody is ‘set up to succeed.’ 

Learning capacity: 

“To think for yourself, decide for yourself, you have the power to change that whole scene with the edit. You gain the confidence to make those decisions, to stand strong in what you believe, and what you see and what you think is best for yourself and other people.”

(Kral, & Schwab, 2012)

• • In these spaces, they are free to ‘hang out’ and experiment and to share and learn from one another. 
• Design Principle 3: Space where learners learn
  • Focus on the crucial enabling role played by facilitators/mentors’ in the learning process
  • These facilitators do not see themselves as ‘bosses’ but give agency to the young people they are working with
  • They work in a highly collaborative and respectful manner, show respect and interest in the language and culture of the learners
• Design Principle 4: A space to grow into new roles and responsibilities 
  • Provide opportunities for young adults to participate in project-based learning and take on responsible goal-oriented roles
• Design Principle 5: A space to practice oral and written language 
  • Importance of youth engagement in youth-based organizations for language development. 
  • An important feature of learning spaces is their capacity to provide a place where children can practice their learning, including literacy
  • While this may be enabled just by having access to the resources needed for alphabetic or digital literacy activities, in some cases literacy support was provided

“The best way to learn is to do it, get in there, get your hands dirty, get on there, play with it…”

(Kral, & Schwab, 2012)

• Design principle 6: A space to express self/cultural identity through multimodal forms 
  • Young people are experiencing self-directed, creative, and meaningful productive activity enabled by access to resources and a sense of spatial control

“It is evident that where young people have access to digital resources and technologies, they are engaging in new forms of media production to express themselves and their cultures.”

(Kral, & Schwab, 2012)

• • The visual and creative aspects of multimedia work show the cultural practices and symbol structures in image and language that learners are using for identity formation
• Design Principle 7: A space to develop and engage in enterprise 
  • In the article, they found successful economic enterprises generated by youth int their communities, often around shared cultural belief systems 
• Design Principle 8: A space to engage with the world
  • Through music, theatre, film, and various social media, youth are engaging with the world. 
    • Through these means, they showcase their skills and creations and cultures.
  • Their experience is one in which their culture is both preserved and celebrated
  • Festivals provide an opportunity for young people to set their minds to producing music or theatre performances or films 
  • All these settings provide a space for young people to express their own identity and engage with the world on their terms

Finally, the last reading, a blog post by Selwyn (2020), gives us clear insight into how learning design is now; based on the needs of students in the Covid-19 pandemic.

The impacts Covid-19 has had on our students and teachers (as stated in my blog) has also affected the variety of learning settings including online school.

“After young people being taught through google classroom and zoom lessons, it is reasoned – we’ll have to seriously consider the prospect of online education taking on a more prominent role as school systems adjusts to the post-pandemic world.”

(Selwyn, 2020)

It is shocking how fast the world of education changed in the matter of just days and how this changeover altered the views of online and distributed learning. As stated by the reading, what happened in months is not equivalent to the research on how impactable online learning can be. There was no thought to think of the “educational inequities” behind the choices that were made by teachers and students because there was simply no time. With a change from students coming to a face-to-face classroom now having to have access to the internet, technology, and time there was utter chaos and frustration from all parties. At this moment, teachers could truly understand the “not one size fits all” assumptions that come with education and learning design. There were issues of Digital flexibility, Timing flexibility, and overall Student participation. Covid-19 has shown teachers just how big of a deal it is to create a learning setting that is unique and customizable for each student and has shown us what happens if it isn’t. 

References

Basham, J.D., Blackorby, J., Stahl, S. & Zhang, L. (2018) Universal Design for Learning Because Students are (the) Variable. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 477-507). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University ETC Press.Masters, G. (2018, April 30)

Kral, I. & Schwab, R.G. (2012). Chapter 4: Design Principles for Indigenous Learning Spaces. Safe Learning Spaces. Youth, Literacy and New Media in Remote Indigenous Australia. ANU Press .​http://doi.org/10.22459/LS.08.2012​ Retrieved from: https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/learning-spaces %EF%BB%B

Selwyn. N. (2020). Online learning: Rethinking teachers’ ‘digital competence’ in light of COVID-19. [Weblog].

The readings, topic notes, and webinar for topic 2 “Historical & theoretical context of K-12 online & open learning in Canada” gave me a new perspective on how far online learning & open learning has come in Canada and also how far it needs to go. Before taking notes and annotating with my peers on the “Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning“, and the blog; “Learning theories and online learning“, my knowledge I realize for this type of learning was very scattered and somewhat incorrect. If anything, before this topic, the closest I got to learning more about online learning and the benefits and difficulties it brings for both the student and the teacher was through watching my two elementary school teacher parents convert over to an online platform. 

Learnings based off of notes:

One of the most crucial pieces of information I learned was how “new” and “ill-researched” this topic is. Delving into the readings the very first thought made by me was how it took over 20 years for any form of a re-examination of formal research to be conducted on these topics. My theoretical thinking for this reasoning is that: The dramatic evolution of technological resources and hardware over the past decade has brought vast advancements compared to the course of the past 20 years which is why a new examination of online learning was needed.

During the course readings I learned a lot about Canada and how it finances its e-learning education, and needless to say I was surprised at times. Compared to the rest of the world Canada ranks quite high amongst the nations of the world in the category of “educational spending per capita” (Barbour, M & Labonte, R, 2018, p. 601). However, each province and territory is responsible for funding, creating curriculum, and managing their educational programs meaning there is no national funding, policy, or governing (I never understood the point of having 13 different curriculums). According to this article and my fellow peer Leona Ngan, the provincial/territorial funding is distributed equally amongst private and public schools on “per-student funding based on enrollment” (Barbour, M & Labonte, R, 2018, p. 601) regardless of the external/independent funding that these schools may be getting elsewhere (Ngan, L, 2020).

Historical trends in k-12 online and distributed learning:

1919: Correspondence school opens in Canada, British Columbia

1945-95: First virtual school is established in Canada. Avon Maitland Distance Education Centre in Ontario

1995-96: First virtual school to offer multiple courses opens. Electronic Distance Education Network in Ontario

1995-99: Several K-12 online learning programs are developed and operated in Alberta

2008-12: Distance education and online learning flourishes in all 13 provinces and territories

2013: CANeLearng national non-profit is launched to “provide leadership that champions student success by supporting organizations and educators involved in online and blended learning through networking, collaboration, and research opportunities”

2015-16: Of the 5.1 million students enrolled in education programs in Canada 5.7% of the population was enrolled in e-learning

2017: Francophone K-12 eLearning community is established

2018: Every Canadian province and territory has some form of online distance learning

(Barbour, M & Labonte, R, 2018, p. 602-611)

Theoretical trends in K-12 online and distributed learning:

(Edgar, D, 2012, p. 5)

References:

“We are social beings… this fact is a central aspect of learning”

(Garrett Dickers, 2018)

Before entering this course and learning more from the course resources and handouts, my knowledge of the importance of interactions and relationships within a K-12 classroom was purely from personal experience. It is clear being both a student and a teacher how much of a difference the relationships amongst your students, their peer and you can make in personal learning, however, what was revolutionary to me was how these different relationships work differently to promote learning. 

While taking notes throughout the two readings a lot of familiar theories were brought up, starting with Vygotsky and his theory of Social Development. This theory states that students learn best when they work within their Zone of proximal development (Garett Dickers,  2018). This theory has been talked a lot within the educational community and can be explained by what a student can accomplish on their own compared to what they can eventually achieve with the assistance of peers, instructors, and with a deeper understanding. What never occurred to me however was how the Zone of Proximal Development proves the statement that learning, and conceptualizing occurs at a greater level through interaction and collaboration (what the learner can achieve with the help from peers and teachers). 

    Learning-Instructor interaction   ^ in educational value

    Learner-Learner interaction         ^ in educational value

                                                                        ^ in motivational value 

    Learner-content interaction        ^ in educational value                           

During the readings, I couldn’t help but reflect on my time as an online student. In Dicker’s article, there is a point where he states the barriers that come alongside online learning: Lack of communication with peers, impersonal nature of online learning, fear of isolation, lack of social context, and lack of student collaboration, and honestly, I could relate to each of these barriers and how negatively they affected me within the past four months. To spare the sad details of my stressful times while being involved in an online learning platform, stated plainly, it is so important that we as teachers learn to be able to express the same level of relationships, we do in a face-to-face classroom on an online platform. 

“Learning is social, learning is active, learning is interactive”

(Garett Dickers, 2018)

Garrett Dicker’s article gives solutions and tools for what teachers can do to build these virtual relationships with their students while still promoting a safe and engaging learning environment. In the age of having so many optional online tools teachers can use programs and software to create learning spaces that can be arguably just as interactive, collaborative, and motivating as the classroom. As the article explains, these online spaces are so important to students on levels deeper than their content, these online spaces are the key to keeping children motivated in their learning. Creating a social presence is the key to creating the classroom community (Dickers, 2018) and can be done through social media platforms such as Zoom, Facebook, Twitter, etc. These social spaces also give teachers the chance to create meaningful one-on-one relationships with each student to aid in their own personal learning and to facilitate a trusting community. Teachers can show their engagement with their students by:

• • Designing and organizing learning activities;
  • Facilitating discourse with students, parents, and other teachers;
  • Providing students with one-on-one instruction;
  • Nurturing a safe and caring learning environment;
  • Motivating students to engage in learning activities; and
  • Closely monitoring student behavior and learning

                    (Garrett Dickers, 2018)

Topic one has forced me to reflect upon the importance of creating meaningful relationships and how I can create them myself with others. It is alarming the difference us humans are in reality than how we come across online, and I can see in everyday situations how relationships, communication, and even personal attributes can abruptly change across both. This “change” I wish to learn more about and how to control/rid the stigma on “hiding behind the computer screen”. It frustrates me and scares me knowing that people feel safer and stronger sharing negative or fake emotions when virtual versus face-to-face, and this worries me when it comes to creating meaningful interactions and relationships in an online learning platform.

References:

Garrett Dickers, A. (2018) Social Interaction in K-12 Online Learning. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 509-522 ). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University ETC Press.