• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Peter Shea's Community of Inquiry II: New Research on the Future of Online Learning
 

Peter Shea's Community of Inquiry II: New Research on the Future of Online Learning

on

  • 2,862 views

SLN SOLsummit 2009 presentation - by Peter Shea ...

SLN SOLsummit 2009 presentation - by Peter Shea
http://slnsolsummit2009.edublogs.org
New Approaches in Online Learning Research
This presentation will share new research towards a theory of online teaching and learning. This ongoing investigation employs novel research methods including quantitative content analysis, social network analysis, and cluster analysis to further our understanding of pedagogical, social, and cognitive processes essential for quality online education.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,862
Views on SlideShare
2,852
Embed Views
10

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
72
Comments
0

3 Embeds 10

http://www.slideshare.net 6
https://vanckohall.delhi.edu 3
https://ilearn.mcphs.edu 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Peter Shea's Community of Inquiry II: New Research on the Future of Online Learning Peter Shea's Community of Inquiry II: New Research on the Future of Online Learning Presentation Transcript

    • Peter Shea SLN Senior Researcher Educational Theory and Practice & CCI University at Albany Community of Inquiry II: New Research on the Future of Online Learning SLN SOLsummit Meeting February, 2009
    • Overview • New research towards a theory of online teaching and learning. • Research methods including – quantitative content analysis, social network analysis, and cluster analysis • Goal: further our understanding of pedagogical, social, and cognitive processes essential for quality online education.
    • Overview: Community of Inquiry Framework
    • > 1000 papers refer to CoI foundational studies
    • Community of Inquiry Framework Cognitive Presence Social Presence The extent to which The ability of learners are able to participants construct and confirm to identify with the meaning through community (e.g., course sustained reflection of study), communicate and discourse in a purposefully in a trusting critical community of environment, and inquiry. develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities. Teaching Presence The design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes
    • Elements,Categories & Indicators ELEMENTS CATEGORIES INDICATORS (examples only) Social Presence Open Communication Learning climate/r isk-free expression Group Cohesion Group identity/ collaboration Personal/Affective Self projection/e xpressing emotions Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement Exploration Information exchange Integration Connecting ideas Resolution Appl ying new ideas Teaching Presence Design & Organization Setting curriculum & methods Facilitating Discourse Shaping constructive exchange Direct Instruction Clarifying, explaining, demonstrating
    • Questions • Do instructor skills in teaching presence foster students’ social presence? • Do student experiences of teaching and social presence “predict” their experience of cognitive presence?
    • Teaching Presence Indicators When the online instructor: • Communicates course topics, goals, and due dates • Provides clear instructions • Helps students clarify their thinking • Keeps students on task, engaged, and participating • Encourages students to explore new ideas • Focuses discussion on issues that aided student learning • Establishes a sense of course community • Provides explanations or demonstrations to help learners better understand the content • Gives helpful feedback • Asks for feedback on how the course could be improved It leads to…
    • Social Presence Students: • gain a sense of belonging in the course • form distinct impressions of course participants • find online communication an excellent medium for social interaction • are able to identify with the thoughts and feelings of other students • feel comfortable conversing online • feel comfortable participating in discussions • feel comfortable interacting with course participants • feel comfortable disagreeing with others • online discussions helped students develop a sense of collaboration • feel their points of view are acknowledged by others Which in turn leads to…
    • Cognitive Presence • Course activities pique curiosity • Problems posed increase interest in course issues • Students feel motivated to explore content related topics • Students brainstorm & find relevant information to aid them in resolving questions • Online discussions help students appreciate different perspectives • Combining new information helps students answer questions • Learning activities help students create solutions • Reflection on course content & discussions help students understand fundamental concepts • Students can describe ways to test & apply their new knowledge • Students develop solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice • Students can apply knowledge created in their courses to work or other non-class related activities
    • Structural Equation Modeling
    • .4 0 .3 8 .4 1 .1 8 .2 9 .2 7 .6 2 .6 7 .6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q22 q21 q20 q19 q18 q17 q16 q15 q14 .77 .78 .59 .58 .86 .85 .62 .91 .77 Social 1 1 q34 Presence .4 4 q1 .3 7 .52 1 1 q33 .75 (.4 .3 9 q2 .4 0 9)* * .78 1 1 q32 .78 .4 0 q3 * .4 3 2)* .80 .78 .85 (.5 1 Cognitive 1 .52 q31 .2 7 .86 q4 .5 3 .75 Presence .84 .69 )** 1 1 q30 .2 7 q5 (.47 .2 4 .87 .7 .49 2 1 1 .90 q29 .2 9 q6 .1 9 .75 Teaching Presence .88 1 .72 .81 .80 2 1 q28 .4 9 q7 .2 3 .90 .85 1 1 q27 .4 4 q8 .1 8 .7 7 .8 1 1 .89 .85 q26 .4 7 q9 .2 7 1 1 q25 .3 4 q10 .2 4 .74 1 1 q24 ..3 6 q11 .2 8 1 .02 1 q23 .4 8 .06(.04)* q12 .00 .3 8 (.08 (.0 1) )** 1 q13 .4 6 Age Academic Gender Level .22** .06* .00
    • Effects Table 2: Unstandardized Path Coefficient and Total Effects Path Unstanderdized Standardized Coefficient Coefficient Direct Effects Gender to Teaching Presence .06* .04* Age to Teaching Presence .02** .08** Academic Level to Teaching Presence .00 .01 Teaching Presence to Social Presence .52** .52** Teaching Presence to Cognitive Presence .49** .47** Social Presence to Cognitive Presence .52** .49** Total Effects Gender to Social Presence .03 .00 Gender to Cognitive Presence .05 .00 Age to Social Presence .01 .00 Age to Cognitive Presence .02 .00 Academic Level to Social Presence .00 .01 Academic Level to Cognitive Presence .00 .01 Teaching Presence to Cognitive Presence .77** .72** Note. *p<.05, **p<.001
    • Weaknesses of Model • Research methods limited/problematic • Based primarily in discussion • Limited to one form of presence at a time • Other areas of courses not considered • Model categories biased toward what can be discovered in discussions
    • Solutions • Need to look at other areas of courses • Use multiple methods – QCA, SNA, Cluster Analysis • Goal is to code entire courses for – TP SP CP simultaneously • Revise and expand these categories • Develop more comprehensive model • Build theory w/ dialogue between methods
    • Current study • The current study goes beyond prediction of student reports of “presence”. • Quantitative content analysis of two complete online courses with… • Low v Higher Instructor Presence • Goal: find TP, SP, and CP patterns/associations in discussions and other courses areas. • Determine if previous research results can be verified, refined, or extended.
    • Re-examining Affective Indicators for Measuring Social Presence in the COI Framework
    • Three Categories of Social Presence Indicators (Garrison et al. 2000) Affective Expression Expression of emotions, feelings, mood Open Communications Responses that build and (Interactive Responses) sustain relationships; tacit expressions of support, encouragement, and acceptance Group Cohesion Activities that build and sustain a sense of group commitment; use of greetings, names, “us” or “we,” social sharing
    • Courses and Coding Process
    • Coding Process • Two coders • Coded random module for practice • Met to negotiate • Identified problems • Established and documented guidelines • Recoded original module • Message = unit of analysis • Coded for presence/absence of SP indicators: AF, OC, CH or NC
    • Original Codes from Rourke et al. 1999. Swan et al. 2001 in blue SP Categories Indicators Code Definition Expressing emotions SP-AFI Affective (AF) Conventional expressions of emotion Use of humor SP-AF2 Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements, sarcasm Self-disclosure SP-AF3 Presents details of life outside of class, or expresses vulnerability Use of unconventional expressions SP-AF4 Unconventional expressions of emotion. includes repetitious to express emotion punctuation, conspicuous capitalization, emoticons Expressing values SP-AF5 Expressing personal values, beliefs and attitudes Continuing a thread SP-OC-1 Open Communication Using reply feature of software, rather than starting a new thread (OC) Quoting from others' messages SP-OC-2 Using software features to quote others' entire message or cut and passing selections of others' messages Referring explicitly to others' SP-OC-3 Direct references to contents of others' posts messages Asking questions SP•OC4 Students ask questions of other students or the moderator Complimenting. expressing SP-OC-5 Complimenting others or contents of others' messages appreciation Expressing agreement SP-OC-6 Expressing agreement with others or contents of others messages Expressing Disagreement SP-OC7 Expresses disagreement with other or contents of others messages SP-OC-8 Personal Advice Offering specific advice to classmates Vocatives SP-CH-I Group Cohesion (CH) Addressing or referring to the participants by name SP-CH-2 Addresses or refers to the group Addresses the group as we., us, our, group using inclusive pronouns Phatics, salutations & greetings Communication that serves a purely social function; greetings or SP-CH-3 closures Social Sharing SP-CH-4 Sharing information unrelated to the course SP-CH5 Course Reflection Reflection on the course itself
    • Two Identical 15-week Courses Instructor KS Instructor JY Duration of Approximately 2 weeks Discussions Number of One discussion from Modules 1-5 Discussions Coded Total Number of 490 454 Discussion Postings Number of Students 19 20 At Start of the Term Number of Students Completing the Term 17 16 Minimum Number of 2 to 3 postings a week Required Postings
    • Initial and Negotiated Inter-rater Reliability using Cohen’s Kappa Initial and Negotiated Holsti’s Coefficient of Reliability Course A (KS) Course B (JY) Course A (KS) Course B (JY) Initial k Negotiated Initial k Negotiated Initial Negotiated Initial Negotiated k k Module 1 0.91 0.982857 0.90 0.981 Module 1 075 0.95 0.75 0.97 Module 2 0.91 0.980695 0.91 0.99 Module 2 0.76 0.94 0.78 0.99 Module 3 0.89 0.977778 0.87 0.97 Module 3 0.70 0.93 0.66 0.91 Module 4 0.89 0.998273 0.88 0.98 Module 4 0.71 0.99 0.71 0.96 Module 5 Module 5 0.75 1 0.82 1 0.99 0.90411 0.93 1.00 Pre-negotiated Instructor Instructor average IRR* for 5 KS JY Discussions With All SP .73 .74 Categories/Indicators With AF Indicators .85 .92 Removed
    • Findings •Overall increase in SP indicators in Course KS •Overall decrease in SP indicators in Course JY Avg Avg Number of Individual Student Indicators per # of Number of Individual Student Indicators per # of indicator indicator per Module students Module students per student student AF OC CH indicators AF OC CH indicators JY KS 70 103 41 214 19 11.26 59 65 24 148 18 8.22 Module 1 Module 1 36 73 28 137 19 7.21 43 46 23 112 16 7.00 Module 2 Module 2 20 71 24 115 18 6.39 39 72 22 133 16 8.31 Module 3 Module 3 40 63 29 132 17 7.76 73 122 68 263 16 16.44 Module 4 Module 4 7 23 8 38 17 2.24 32 63 43 138 15 9.20 Module 5 Module 5 Total 173 333 130 636 Total 246 368 180 794 Note: All numbers reflect negotiated occurrences of indicator.
    • Previous Research • Swan (2003) found that Affective (AF) and Open Communication (OC) increase over time while Cohesive (C) indicators decrease. • Vaughan (2005) found that CH increases over time while AF and OC decrease. • Garrison & Arbaugh (2007) indicate that SP should become more transparent over time. Findings • All 3 indicators decreased in Course JY • AF slowly declined, and OC and CH increased in course KS. • Preliminary findings on SP support all three aforementioned patterns. JY # of stud. KS # of stud. Module 1 19 Module 1 18 Module 2 19 Module 2 16 Module 3 18 Module 3 16 Module 4 17 Module 4 16 Module 5 17 Module 5 15 Note: All numbers reflect negotiated occurrences of indicator.
    • Research Questions How does: • instructor teaching presence correlate with student social presence? • instructor social presence correlate with student social presence? • instructor presence correlate with student presence?
    • Instructor TP – Student SP
    • Instructor SP – Student SP
    • Total Posts: Teacher - Student
    • Conclusions • Student presence tracks instructor presence. • Is this a better predictor of total interaction? • Instructor SP is a better predictor of student SP • New direction for survey research? • Ask students to assess instructor SP as well as or instead of TP?
    • Cluster Analysis • Segment survey respondents into • Low, medium, high • TP, SP, CP • Look for patterns and associations
    • Cluster Analysis Item Clusters Low Medium High The instructor communicated course topics -.90 -.05 .75 The instructor communicated course goals -.89 -.08 .74 The instructor provided clear instructions -.89 -.04 .75 The instructor communicated due dates -.84 -.06 .67 The instructor helped students learn -1.05 -.07 .85 The instructor helped students clarify their thinking -1.05 -.05 .85 The instruct or kept students engaged & participating -1.04 -.06 .85 The instructor kept students on task -1.04 -.07 .87 The instructor encouraged students to explore new ideas -1.08 -.08 .83 The instructor established a sense of course community -1.01 -.07 .86 The instructor helped focus discussion on issues that aided student -.97 -.08 .80 learning The instructor gave feedback that helped students -1.03 -.07 .82 My instructor provided explanations or demonstrations to help me -1.06 -.06 .84 better understand the content of the course. My instructor provided feedback to the class during the -1.04 -.06 .81 discussions or other activities to help us learn. My instructor asked for feedback on how this course could be -.87 -.05 .76 improved. Total Number of Student s 520 1422 1682
    • TP and SP Correlate with CP • Evidence of an equivalence model • Increase in SP correlates with higher CP • But better TP compensates for lower SP
    • CP X TP X SP and Type of Instruction
    • Significant Interaction • Student who report low or medium TP in online courses report lower CP than like students in hybrid courses. • Students who report high TP in full online courses report higher CP than student who report high TP in hybrid courses
    • Interaction
    • Social Network Analysis • Method to determine the location of participants within their network of interactions • Measures of centrality, prestige, density etc • Can reveal who is contributing to discourse and learning in significant ways
    • SNA: JY Module 1
    • SNA: Measures Density 0.45 0.4 Density (matrix average) 0.35 0.3 0.25 KS JY 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 Modules
    • Other equivalencies • Is SNA density roughly equivalent to student social presence measure? • If so, an incredible time saving device… • Can be computed automatically versus • Weeks of coding in QCA
    • Density 0.45 0.4 Density (matrix average) 0.35 0.3 0.25 KS JY 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 Modules
    • Social Network Visualizations
    • Next steps • Coding TP and SP outside of discussions • Coding CP • Further dialogue between survey research and QCA