The study investigates how shared understanding develops in chat learning environments, focusing on the dynamic interplay between personal meaning and shared knowledge. Through quantitative content analysis of chat transcripts, it finds that social and teaching presence enhance cognitive presence, facilitating a non-linear progression through the practical inquiry model. Recommendations suggest that chat spaces may foster higher-order thinking in a community of inquiry context.

1. From Personal Meaning to Shared Understanding: The Nature of Discussion in a Community of Inquiry David S. Stein, Constance E. Wanstreet, Cheryl L. Engle, Hilda R. Glazer, Ruth A. Harris, Susan M. Johnston, Mona R. Simons, and Lynn A. Trinko

3. Shared Understanding Shared understanding is conceptually defined as the dynamic relationship of incorporating personal meaning and integrating knowledge that has been received by the group.

4. Social Presence Cognitive Presence Teaching Presence (Structure/Process) Educational Experience Supporting Discourse Setting Climate Selecting Content Community of Inquiry Model Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000

5. Practical Inquiry Model Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001 Deliberation (Applicability) Conception (Ideas) Perception (Awareness) Action (Practice) EXPERIENCE Exploration Integration Triggering Events Resolution

6. Previous Research: Presence Computer Mediated Learning Discussion Cognitive Presence

7. Purpose of Study To examine how shared meaning develops through the chat process in a way that reflects the dynamic relationship between personal meaning and shared understanding.

8. Research Questions What is the process by which shared understanding develops in chat learning spaces? How does the conversation flow during a chat in terms of the practical inquiry model?

9. Method This ex post facto study used a quantitative content analysis to investigate the development of cognitive presence through the practical inquiry process.

10. Course Background Learners studied the role of adult education in American society Seven groups formed by learners’ affinity or proximity to one another in initial class Five groups chose to work online and two chose to conduct their small group discussions face-to-face

11. Course Activities Three face-to-face sessions: at beginning, middle, and end of course Weekly small-group discussions related to course readings and questions posed by instructor Groups discussed issues via chat sessions Group moderator synthesized discussion and posted to discussion board

12. Study Design Of the groups available to us one was selected at random Time 1 (week 3) and Time 2 (week 7) of the group’s transcripts were analyzed

13. Units of Meaning Chat Transcripts A complete participant response Example: “I know that this is vague, but we have to start somewhere. end” Discussion Posting Analyzed at the paragraph level

14. Coding Triggering Event Exploration Integration Resolution

15. Krippendorff’s Alpha Coefficient For Interrater Reliability 1.0 .81 .99 .98 Two Coders .96 .83 .67 .89 Three Coders Discussion 2 Transcript Chat 2 Transcript Discussion 1 Transcript Chat 1 Transcript Number of Coders

16. Findings: Percentage of Meaning Units Coded as Social, Teaching, and Cognitive Presence 100 58 100 55 Cognitive -- 13 -- 18 Teaching -- 29 -- 27 Social Discussion Posting Chat Discussion Posting Chat Presence Time 2 (Week 7) Time 1 (Week 3)

17. Findings: Percentage of Meaning Units Coded as Cognitive Presence 100 2 50 1 Resolution -- 15 50 28 Integration -- 75 -- 52 Exploration -- 8 -- 18 Triggering Event Discussion Posting Chat Discussion Posting Chat Practical Inquiry Phase Time 2 (Week 7) Time 1 (Week 3)

18. Findings: Flow of Social, Teaching, and Cognitive Presence in Chat Two

19. Findings: Flow of Social, Teaching, and Cognitive Presence in Chat Two Te In ExExExEx Te Ex ExExExExExEx Re Te ExExEx In Te Ex ExExEx Re Ex In Ex ExExExExExEx InInIn In ExEx Ex ExEx

20. Practical Inquiry Model Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001 Deliberation (Applicability) Conception (Ideas) Perception (Awareness) Action (Practice) EXPERIENCE Exploration Integration Triggering Events Resolution

21. Findings Chat conversations naturally evolved Participants reached shared understanding through chat, in this study Social and teaching presence enhanced the process of shared understanding in the cognitive area Chat conversations moved through the Practical Inquiry Model in non-linear fashion

22. Conclusions In chat learning spaces, personal meaning develops into shared understanding through a natural progression of the Practical Inquiry Model The transformation of personal meaning into shared solutions extends throughout the chats in a non-linear process

23. Recommendations The use of chat spaces may need to be considered as it has the potential to increase higher-order thinking when used in the context of a community of inquiry

24. References Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Archer, W., & Garrison, R. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing transcripts. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5( 2). Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., and 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. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), 7-23. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology , 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3). Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_meyer.pdf Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 118-140. Strijbos, J., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. (2005). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(2006), 29-48. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education , 8, 1-12.

25. For More Information Contact David S. Stein, Ph.D. stein.1@osu.edu Ruth A. Harris [email_address] Lynn A. Trinko [email_address]