Communities of Inquiry and Assessment: Graded Discussions BASED ON PAPER TO BE PUBLISHED IN HCT ELEARNING JOURNAL 2013 PAUL LESLIE SHARJAH WOMEN’S COLLEGE 2013
Abstract As the use of digital /blended learning increases, social media tools such as discussion boards may become increasingly relevant. The community of inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) suggests that three „presences‟ are required in any group interaction. Discussion board analysis attempts to correlate experience with the community of inquiry model with the quality of discussion board interactions. Can the quality of the exchanges be improved through familiarity with the model?
Theoretical Background 70% of students report that they learn best in a blended environments (Dahlstrom, 2012, p. 7). Social media provides students with a wider audience The public nature of online discussion boards encourages everyone to push themselves further. Students find meaning for their ideas in the responses they receive from others (Gergen K. , 2011, p. 366). Communities of inquiry are supported by the “desire for students to express themselves socially and attract attention to themselves” (Leslie & Murphy, 2008, Implications).
Community of Inquiry Interactive Diagram (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000)
Table 1: Operational Definitions of the Presences (Akyol & Garrison, 2008)Table 1Operational Definitions of the Presences (Akyol & Garrison, 2008) INDICATORS ELEMENTS CATEGORIES (examples only) Open Communication Learning Climate/Risk-Free Expression Group Cohesion Group Identity/Collaboration Social Presence Personal/Affective Self Projection/Expressing Emotions Triggering Event Sense of Puzzlement Exploration Information Exchange Integration Connecting Ideas Cognitive Presence Resolution Applying New Ideas Design & Organization Setting Curriculum & Methods Facilitating Discourse Shaping Constructive Exchange Teaching Presence Direct Instruction Focusing and Resolving Issues
Table 2: Data collection chartTable 2: Data collection chart Discussion boards in order of student familiarity First year cohort First year cohort Third year cohort Total Posts 256 257 180 Participants 28 26 17 Average responses per student 9.1 9.9 10.6 Social presence 241 321 170 Instances of Presence Cognitive presence 163 247 216 Teaching presence 26 80 141 Total instances of presence 430 648 527 Average instances of presence per post 1.7 2.5 2.9
Table 3: Instances of presence Discussion boards in order of student familiarity 1 2 3 First year cohort First year cohort Third year cohortSocial presence Instances 241 321 170 % 56 50 32Cognitive presence Instances 163 247 216 % 38 38 41Teaching presence Instances 26 80 141 % 6 12 27
Significant Finding Experience and exposure resulted in increased teaching presence. Cognitive presence increased slightly but content contained prolonged exchanges “For example, when young students register in any social media like Facebook or twitter they will not care what nickname to put or what personal information to appear, as in adult students will think hundred times about their nickname and be very discreet to show his real name or write their personal information including their pictures . “ She was then questioned extensively on the subject by her peers. In subsequent exchanges, she offered increased teaching presence, thus including more students in this issue, and so producing a more informed body of knowledge: “Amal do you prefere to put your real name and personal inforamtion in social media? and why (sic)?”
References Resources and References Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. (2008, December). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 3-22. Retrieved January 6, 2013, from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hct.ac.ae/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=36559412 &site=ehost-live Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology. Louisville: Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sites/communityofinquiry.com/files/Critical_Inquiry_mod el.pdf Gergen, K. (2011). Relation Being: A Brief Introduction. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 280-282. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2011.593453 Leslie, P., & Murphy, E. (2008, October). Post-Secondary Students‟ Purposes for Blogging. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/560/1099