The notion of Cognitive Presence is critical for the development of critical thinking processes and products; however, as I read and listen to the material, I’ve been reflecting on how much higher education (online or f2f) fails to facilitate the type of environment where it cognitive presence can flourish.
The “lecture” and large class sizes remain the norm for many courses on many campuses, particularly at the undergraduate level. I question how the development of cognitive presence can possibly be a goal in these kinds of environments.
I have been reminded of a few things through lesson 1. The importance of dialogical encounters, as I mentioned in my first post, has been reinforced. This leads me to have a strong commitment to explore as many ways as possible to facilitate and moderate these encounters.
I have also been reminded of the usefulness and limitations of models. The deconstructivist nature of a model for critical thinking is useful as a way to analyze human experience. Models can provide a door into a complex phenomenon and give us a common discourse to work with.
However, I find that models are limited by the use of certain terms (ie. creativity, imagination) that may be culture-dependent. I have conducted research that unpacks the term “creativity” from a cross-cultural perspective (Densky, 2015). Also, the notion of critical thinking and inquiry-based learning is not a universally-accepted mode for teaching and learning. This doesn’t mean the model is not useful; it simply reminds me that not all learners will be comfortable or familiar with a learning environment that focuses on the development of cognitive presence. Some learners are used to being passive, and these learners will need time and support to “learn how to learn” in this way.
Being new to teaching online, I am looking forward to the challenge of creating opportunities for my students to learn with and from each other. My question at this point is “how can I achieve this?” and “how can I support learners in an online environment who may be reluctant to participate?” Without the cues that are available in a f2f environment, I question my ability to engage all learners. It seems that it would be easy to disengage as a learner, and it is my understanding that online/distance courses have a high attrition/non-completion rate. I also question the constraints of time, both mine and the students. I have always been the type of teacher to make time for students, and I’m curious about how much time an online course will require. I’m not concerned here about the time for marking and assessment, but the time required to effectively create the type of learning environment that will support critical thinking.
As I read through a few other posts, I realize that others share the same concerns and some are able to provide solutions (Faulkner, October 7, 2018) from their experiences. I am also experiencing reluctance towards leaving comments or engaging with the other bloggers. I feel disconnected from the others who are completing these courses, and this confirms my belief in the power of the cohort. The course I will be teaching is a cohort-model, and I realize that I will need to model the frequency and style of interaction that I hope the students will engage in.
Lots of learning at various meta levels!
Karen Densky, January 5, 2018
Densky, K. (2015). Conceptualizing Creativity and Culture in Language Teaching. Creativity and Language Teaching: Perspectives from Research and Practice. R. Jones. & J. Richards (Eds). UK: Routledge.