CoI for Tech and ID

854 views

Published on

This presentation illustrates how the CoI survey can be used to assess the efficacy of new technologies and instructional design strategies.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
854
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CoI for Tech and ID

  1. 1. Using the CoI to Assess<br /> ID Strategies and <br />New Technologies in Online Courses<br />Phil Ice, Ed.D.<br />SLN SOL Summit <br />Syracuse, 2010<br />
  2. 2. Community of Inquiry Framework<br /><ul><li>a process model of learning in online and blended educational environments
  3. 3. grounded in a collaborative constructivist view of higher education
  4. 4. assumes effective online learning requires the development of a community of learners that supports meaningful inquiry and deep learning</li></li></ul><li>social presence<br />cognitive presence<br />LEARNING<br />teaching presence<br />
  5. 5. Social Presence<br /><ul><li>the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally -- as ‘real’ people
  6. 6. the degree to which participants in computer mediated communication feel socially and emotionally connected </li></li></ul><li>Social Presence - Elements<br /><ul><li>affective expression (expressing emotion, self-projection)
  7. 7. open communication (learning climate, risk free expression)
  8. 8. group cohesion (group identity, collaboration)</li></li></ul><li>Cognitive Presence<br /><ul><li>the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry </li></li></ul><li>Cognitive Presence - Elements<br /><ul><li>triggering event (sense of puzzlement)
  9. 9. exploration (sharing information & ideas)
  10. 10. integration (connecting ideas)
  11. 11. resolution (synthesizing & applying new ideas)</li></li></ul><li>Teaching Presence<br /><ul><li>the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes</li></li></ul><li>Teaching Presence - Elements<br /><ul><li>design and organization (setting curriculum & activities)
  12. 12. facilitation (shaping constructive discourse)
  13. 13. direct instruction (focusing & resolving issues)</li></li></ul><li>Community of Inquiry Survey<br /><ul><li>9 social presence items (3 affective expression, 3 open communication, 3 group cohesion)
  14. 14. 12 cognitive presence items (3 triggering, 3 exploration, 3 integration, 3 resolution)
  15. 15. 13 teaching presence items (4 design & facilitation, 6 facilitation of discourse, 3 direct instruction)</li></li></ul><li>CoI Survey Validation<br /><ul><li>tested in graduate courses at four institutions in the US and Canada
  16. 16. principal component factor analysis
  17. 17. three factor model predicted by CoI framework confirmed
  18. 18. Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, Shea & Swan - 2008</li></li></ul><li>Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (draft v15)<br />Developed by Ben Arbaugh, Marti Cleveland-Innes, Sebastian Diaz, Randy Garrison, Phil Ice, Jennifer Richardson, Peter Shea & Karen Swan<br /> <br />Teaching Presence<br />Design & Organization<br />1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topi<br />2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.<br />3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities.<br />4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities.<br />Facilitation of Discourse<br />5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn.<br />6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. <br />7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue.<br />8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn.<br />9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.<br />10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants. <br />Direct Instruction<br />11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn.<br />12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. <br />13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.<br />
  19. 19.  <br />Social Presence<br />Affective Expression <br />14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.<br />15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.<br />16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. <br />Open communication<br />17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. <br />18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. <br />19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.<br />Group cohesion<br />20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust.<br />21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. <br />22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.<br />
  20. 20.  <br />Cognitive Presence<br />Triggering Even<br />23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues. <br />24. Course activities piqued my curiosity. <br />25. I felt motivated to explore content related questions. <br />Exploration<br />26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course. <br />27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions. <br />28. Discussing course content with my classmates was valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives. <br />Integration<br />29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities.<br />30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.<br />31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.<br />Resolution<br />32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course. <br />33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.<br />34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.<br />
  21. 21. Promises <br />Promises<br />
  22. 22. Flavor’s of the Day<br /><ul><li>Cloud computing and virtualized applications have tremendous promise
  23. 23. However – the rise to prominence is so rapid that adequate evaluation is difficult
  24. 24. Longevity OR extensibility need to be considered prior to adoption to maximize ROI</li></li></ul><li>New Applications are Good<br /><ul><li>New applications that impact learning are better
  25. 25. Higher Education often lags out of an abundance of caution
  26. 26. Academics want to see learning outcomes before they are willing to adopt
  27. 27. Give your faculty what they want</li></li></ul><li>What Adoption Looks Like<br />
  28. 28. Who Adopts<br />
  29. 29. Sometimes a Little is Enough<br /><ul><li>The potential for overkill exists
  30. 30. Just because extremely rich apps exist doesn’t mean they are always needed
  31. 31. Remember that distance learners are isolated from the instructor and classmates physically
  32. 32. This may be by choice
  33. 33. But they still want some contact</li></li></ul><li>Audio Feedback<br /><ul><li>Pilot Study revealed the following benefits of providing asynchronous audio feedback using Acrobat Pro:
  34. 34. THEME 1 – Ability to understand nuance.
  35. 35. THEME 2 – Feelings of increased involvement.
  36. 36. THEME 3 – Increased content retention.
  37. 37. THEME 4 – Instructor caring.</li></li></ul><li>Audio Feedback & the CoI<br /><ul><li>The following slides compare the findings of the multi-institutional CoI sample (n = 1085) that received text-based feedback and responses from a multi-institutional sample(n = 1138) that received audio feedback
  38. 38. In the items addressed there was a significant difference (p > .05) in responses</li></li></ul><li>Teaching Presence<br /><ul><li>The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn.
  39. 39. Summer 2007 / mean = 4.12
  40. 40. Audio group / mean = 4.43
  41. 41. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.
  42. 42. Summer 2007 / mean = 4.44
  43. 43. Audio group / mean = 4.58</li></li></ul><li>Teaching Presence<br /><ul><li>The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the course’s goals and objectives.
  44. 44. Summer 2007 / mean = 4.28
  45. 45. Audio group / mean = 4.57</li></li></ul><li>Social Presence<br /><ul><li>Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.
  46. 46. Summer 2007 / mean = 3.90
  47. 47. Audio group / mean = 4.27</li></li></ul><li>Cognitive Presence<br /><ul><li>I felt motivated to explore content related questions.
  48. 48. Summer 2007 / mean = 4.31
  49. 49. Audio group / mean = 4.55
  50. 50. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.
  51. 51. Summer 2007 / mean = 4.37
  52. 52. Audio group / mean = 4.49</li></li></ul><li>Collaborative<br />Tools<br />
  53. 53. SaaS Word Processors<br /><ul><li>Two online, graduate level education courses (combined n=78) students were asked to complete assignments (mean page count = 9.75 pages), alternating Word and Buzzword as the creation and submission mechanism.
  54. 54. Buzzword is an online document editor that is a part of Acrobat.com</li></li></ul><li>Document Analysis<br /><ul><li>average use of non-text based resources (e.g. hyperlinks, graphics, tables, etc.) was 5.1 for Word submissions and 14.3 for Buzzword based submissions.
  55. 55. Cognitive Presence Indicators</li></li></ul><li>Interview Data<br /><ul><li>Buzzword’s ease of use (as compared to Word) cited as primary reason for inclusion of more links, graphics, etc.
  56. 56. Majority (n = 12) indicated that it was easier for them to express complex concepts using multimedia.</li></li></ul><li>Interview Data<br /><ul><li>The concept of a Buzzword being a personal reflective space was common among 72% of students over 34 years old.
  57. 57. As an example these students frequently developed a document on their own and then shared it with classmates.
  58. 58. 82% of students 34 and younger recognized it as a collaborative tool and began workflow projects by sharing a common document.
  59. 59. Qualitative analysis revealed that these younger students frequently (68%) likened Buzzword to a Wiki or similar collaborative tool. In contrast, only 27% of older students made this association.</li></li></ul><li>Explaining<br />CoI<br />Survey Data<br />
  60. 60. Understanding Why<br /><ul><li>The CoI survey and rubrics based off of it can tell you what is happening but not why
  61. 61. Other measures are needed
  62. 62. Grading Rubrics and Student Interviews make great sources of data
  63. 63. Involve your faculty – this is data they may already have</li></li></ul><li>Rich Internet Application Study<br /><ul><li>Full Sail University – Web Design and Development Program
  64. 64. Study conducted in Deployment of Flash Projects Course
  65. 65. Implement Flash via Multiple Deployment Types
  66. 66. HTML-based Deployments with Flash Content
  67. 67. Full Flash Deployments using FlashPlayer and AIR Runtime
  68. 68. Significant gains on 4 Cognitive Presence items – positive for RIA’s over conventional HTML applications</li></li></ul><li>Grading Rubric Differences<br />Significant Difference – 34.1%increase<br />Significant Difference – 30.5%increase<br />No Significant Difference<br />Significant Difference – 37.7%increase<br />No Significant Difference<br />Significant Difference – 35.6%increase<br />Significant Difference – 46.2%increase<br />Aesthetics<br />Layout<br />Follow Through<br />Craftsmanship<br />Validation<br />Architecture<br />Functionality<br />
  69. 69. Student Interview Data<br /><ul><li>11 Participants
  70. 70. Level of engagement
  71. 71. Perceived Learning
  72. 72. Level of thought required
  73. 73. Applicability to future coursework and career</li></li></ul><li>Student Interview Data<br /><ul><li>Cursory Data Analysis
  74. 74. All believed Photo Viewer activity to be more engaging
  75. 75. 9 believed they learning more from Photo View activity
  76. 76. All believed Photo View activity required more higher order thought
  77. 77. 9 believed Photo Viewer activity would be more relevant to the career ambitions</li></li></ul><li>Director of Course Design, Research & Development<br />American Public University System<br />pice@apus.edu<br />Designing for Meaningful Learning<br />
  78. 78. Socio-Epistemological Orientations<br /><ul><li>Social – Group vs. Individual
  79. 79. Epistemological
  80. 80. Objectivist – lower order thought processes vis-à-vis Bloom’s Taxonomy
  81. 81. Constructivist – higher order thought processes vis-à-vis Bloom’s Taxonomy
  82. 82. Student satisfaction and perceptions of Community may be impacted by the instructors Socio-Epistemological orientation – as projected in content and interactivity</li></ul>(Arbaugh & Benbunnan-Fich, 2006)<br />
  83. 83. Setting and Coding<br /><ul><li>American Public University System – fully online institution
  84. 84. Eight undergraduate and eight graduate level courses were coded for epistemological orientations
  85. 85. Lower three levels of Bloom’s coded as objectivist
  86. 86. Higher three levels of Bloom’s coded as constructivist
  87. 87. Coding of all course activities and discussions
  88. 88. Majority of indicators determined classification</li></li></ul><li>Sample and Data Collection<br /><ul><li>CoI Survey administered for six course terms in all sections of courses that were coded
  89. 89. N = 4397
  90. 90. Undergraduate – 2576
  91. 91. Graduate – 1821
  92. 92. Factor Analysis ran:
  93. 93. Overall
  94. 94. By level
  95. 95. By course
  96. 96. By five year age bands
  97. 97. By clusters – defined by school</li></li></ul><li>Research Question<br /><ul><li>Does epistemological orientation influence factor loading patterns?
  98. 98. Are other variables responsible for factor loading patterns?
  99. 99. Impetus – despite validation of the CoI in 2008, a few subsequent factor analyses have produced a two factor solution
  100. 100. Anecdotal evidence – two factor solution appeared among groups where the emphasis was on training as opposed to true knowledge acquistion</li></li></ul><li>Findings I<br /><ul><li>Factor analysis of all courses combined produced a three factor solution
  101. 101. Factor analysis of all undergraduate courses combined produced a three factor solution
  102. 102. Factor analysis of all graduate courses combined produced a three factor solution
  103. 103. Factor analysis of individual courses (n range of 221 - 405) produced a three factor solution
  104. 104. Factor analysis by school produced three factor solutions</li></li></ul><li>Findings II<br /><ul><li>Age banding 18 - 22, 23 - 27, 28 - 32, 33 - 37, 38 - 42, 43 - 47, 48 - 52, 53 - 57, 58 – 62
  105. 105. Undergraduate maximum age band = 43 – 47
  106. 106. Graduate minimum age band = 23 – 27</li></li></ul><li>Findings III<br /><ul><li>Factor analysis by age band
  107. 107. 18 - 22 produce a 2 factor solution regardless of epistemological orientation or course level
  108. 108. 23 - 37 produce 3 factor solution regardless of epistemological orientation or course level
  109. 109. 38 - 62 overall produce a 3 factor solution overall
  110. 110. 38 - 47 produce a 2 factor solution when the epistemological orientation is objectivist
  111. 111. 38 - 47 produce a 3 factor solution when the epistemological orientation is constructivist
  112. 112. 48 - 62 produce a 2 factor solution regardless of epistemological orientation or course level</li></li></ul><li>Observations<br /><ul><li>Students between 23 - 37 appear to find ways to collaborate or view learning as a collaborative process regardless of level
  113. 113. Students 18 - 22 appear to view teaching and cognitive presence as the same construct regardless of course orientation
  114. 114. Students 48 - 62 appear to view teaching and cognitive presence as the same construct
  115. 115. Students 38 - 47 appear to be influenced by the epistemological orientation of course materials and activities</li></li></ul><li>Future Research I<br /><ul><li>How does the perception of learning activities differ between students 23 – 27 years old and their peers
  116. 116. Why do students 18 - 22 not transfer native social networking and collaboration skills to learning
  117. 117. How can life skills be used to leverage learning for students 48 - 62 years old
  118. 118. Why is epistemological orientation significant for students 38 - 47 and not other age groupings</li></li></ul><li>Future Research II<br /><ul><li>Multi-institutional data
  119. 119. Substantial qualitative work
  120. 120. Hierarchical linear modeling</li></li></ul><li>Director of Course Design, Research & Development<br />American Public University System<br />pice@apus.edu<br />Thank You!<br />Phil Ice, Ed.D.<br />Director of Course Design, Research & Development<br />American Public University System<br />pice@apus.edu<br />

×