• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
CoI for Tech and ID
 

CoI for Tech and ID

on

  • 853 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
853
Views on SlideShare
853
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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

    CoI for Tech and ID CoI for Tech and ID Presentation Transcript

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