Sloan 2011 Learning Presence
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•296 views
Using Learning Presence to Uncover Self-Regulation in the Community of Inquiry Model. Sloan Online Learning Conference November 2011 Suzanne Hayes, Empire State College SUNY Peter Shea, University at Albany SUNY Sedef Smith, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Jason Vickers, University at Albany SUNY
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Sloan 2011 Learning Presence
Similar to Sloan 2011 Learning Presence (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Sloan 2011 Learning Presence
- 1. Suzanne Hayes, Empire State College* Peter Shea, University at Albany* Sedef Smith, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Jason Vickers, University at Albany *State University of New York
- 2. Review of Community of Inquiry Model Learning Presence as a new construct to explain online learner self-regulation LP in collaborative and non-collaborative activities Using social network analysis to examine LP patterns among students
- 3. Community of Inquiry Model (CoI) of Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000 Most widely cited theory in study of online learning Explains what takes place in an online course Based on interaction
- 4. * Triggering event * Exploration * Integration * Resolution Shea & Bidjerano, 2010 All three elements needed to create a meaningful online learning experience (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000)
- 5. Looked to the literature of self-regulated learning (SRL) Zimmerman’s research (2000, 2001) takes into account individual cognition and social interaction SRL evident in students who exhibit agency in directing thoughts, emotions, motivations, behaviors and strategies in the service of their learning
- 6. Shea & Bidgerano (2010) proposed new CoI element called LP Based on large scale survey research they found that LP was strongly correlated with SP, TP & CP
- 7. Examined two undergraduate courses Looked outside threaded discussions to examine other learning activities Identified a problem in applying existing CoI codes to student interaction in a series of small group debate preparation areas Used Zimmerman and others to develop a LP coding scheme Shea, Hayes, Uzuner & Vickers, et al. (In press). Learning presence: additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education.
- 8. Avg Student LP - Combined Debate Prep. v. Debate Discussion - Course B 5 4.5 FP = Forethought & Planning 4 MO = Monitoring SU = Strategy Use 3.5 3 MO 2.5 FP 2 1.5 SU 1 MO 0.5 0 All Prep Areas Debate Discussion More LP in collaborative areas with group products
- 9. A graduate level required research methods blended course delivered during Fall 2010 term 18 doctoral students divided into teams Each team assigned to lead module on research method of their choice Teams worked with instructor to select readings, activities and discussion questions 1 full class discussion and option to select either video/discussion on field notes or interviewing Reporting today on preliminary LP results
- 10. Focused on online discussion transcripts and learning journals from a two-week long course module Coded all Week 2 discussions and module learning journal for LP Refined our original LP coding scheme Realigned with Zimmerman’s (2000) three phase cyclical model of SRL (Planning, Performance and Reflection)
- 11. FP1 Setting goals FP2 Planning FP3 Coordinating, delegating or assigning tasks
- 12. Strategy Use Monitoring ◦ S1 Seeking/offering help ◦ M1 Checking for ◦ S2 Recognizing a gap in understanding knowledge ◦ M2 Identifying problems ◦ S3 Reviewing ◦ M3 Noting completion of tasks ◦ S4 Noting outcome ◦ M4 Evaluating quality of expectations products or process ◦ S5 Seeking/offering ◦ M5 Monitoring and taking additional information corrective action ◦ M6 Appraising interest or engagement ◦ M7 Recognizing learning behaviors of self or group ◦ M8 Advocating effort or focus ◦ M9 Noting use of strategies
- 13. R1 Change in thinking R2 Causal attribution of results to personal or group performance
- 14. SNA measures nature of relationships between actors (students) in a network (online discussion or course) Examines “ties” between participants Represented as a network graph i.e. “who talks to who” and “how often” Helps us understand How complete the network is Who is central to the network and who is isn’t Patterns of participation based on certain characteristics
- 15. Generated social network graph combining 3 discussions from Module 6 week 2 using Usenet software Overlaid student LP measures from QCA
- 16. Paired coders practiced to establish baseline IRR Used Holsti’s Coefficient of Reliability (CR) Completed initial coding; Reported Initial IRR Negotiated differences; Reported Negotiated IRR Negotiated Coding Initial IRR Negotiation IRR
- 17. Holsti’s CR Module 6 Activity Pre Post Week 2 Discussion 1 0.73 1.00 Week 2 Discussion 2 0.81 1.00 Week 2 Discussion 3 0.88 1.00 Learning Journal 0.69 1.00 For exploratory research we targeted .70 +
- 18. Module 6 Week 2
- 22. Based on Combined LP in Journals and Discussions in Module 6 Week 2 Occurrences of Average LP LP Indicators Indicators Student Facilitators 30 7.5 S02, S09, S13, S19 Rest of Class 73 5.2 14 other students Student facilitators demonstrate higher average LP in discussions
- 23. Rankings by LP Occurrence S05 8 S13 8 S09 7 S15 6 … …. S02 4 S19 3
- 24. Rankings by LP Occurrence S02 5 S05 3 S06 3 S18 3 … …. S09 1 S13 1 S19 1
- 25. Facilitators generally at the center of the network due to strength of connections Demonstrated higher levels of LP (monitoring and strategy use) Facilitators appeared to have lower relative LP in learning journals But some students who appear to be less active in discussion have higher journal LP Not surprising to find higher levels of monitoring and reflection in journals.
- 26. Doctoral students Preliminary data based on one week from one module Need results from other CoI measures SP, TP, CP Possible relationship between LP and CP, LP and TP when instructional activity shifted to learners
- 27. Asking students to take on instructional responsibilities may offer promise in terms of enhancing self-regulation Preliminary results are consistent with prior research that points to benefits of having students assume facilitator role in discussions (Baran & Correia, 2009; Gilbert & Dabbah, 2005; Seo, 2007)
- 28. May need to adjust expectations for student facilitators – 3 of their 4 learning journals had lower levels of LP – At what point do students go into overload? Perhaps activity-based discussions (where students “do” something)* when combined with readings and learning journals may encourage LP.
- 29. Learning activity design: Make explicit expectations for individual and group use of planning, monitoring, strategy use and reflection Learning Journals: Ask students to examine their self regulatory processes Assessment: Incorporate elements of LP into rubrics
- 30. Baran, E., & Correria, A. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30, 339–361. doi:10.1080/01587910903236510. 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, 87-105. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6. Gilbert, P. & Dabbah, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse(2005) British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (1),5–18 Seo, K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21, 21–36. doi:10.1080/08923640701298688. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55, (4), 1721–1731. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017Shea, Hayes, Uzuner & Vickers, et al. (In press). Learning presence: additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self- reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Guilford. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: Academic Press. Zimmernan, B.J. & Schunk, D.H. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievment: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk (Eds) Self regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. (pp.1-36) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Editor's Notes
- CoI modelImportant because it is the most widely cited theory in field of online learningProvides a way to explain, describe and predict what place in an online courseIts been very useful perspective to guide faculty development, instructional design and evaluationLastly, this is a theory based on interaction between instructor and students; students with each other; and students with course content
- What is the CoI model of online learning?Posited three elements must be present to contribute to a meaningful online learning experienceFirst is SP which is needed to create a cohesive learning community in a text-based environment. Key elements: positive affect or emotion, ability to project self as real person and connect with others to create a cohesive community of learnersSecond is TP which provides the orchestration of SP and CP through ID, FD and DICP is a result of SP and TP Is manifested as higher order thinking, negotiation of shared meaning and the integration and application of ideas to construct knowledgeAccomplished through online discourseIf we consider this model – there is something missingStudent contributions are under-represented if CP is found only in online discussions
- We have been examining online courses for evidence of these 3 presences since 2008.In analyzing student contributions to online courses, we found that we unable to reliably code examples of student generated discourse found in collaborative learning activities.As we looked more closely, we found that these examples were related to learner self and co-regulation.Zimmerman’s research takes into account both individual cognition and social interaction – the influence of the environment and other people on the learnerSRL evident in students who exhibit agency in directing thoughts, emotions, motivations, behaviors and strategies in the service of their learning These are especially relevant to the success of learner who does not have set class meetings, must still meet deadlines, and participate in collaborative work with other students.
- Shea & Bidjerano have proposed that a new element be added to the CoI model called Learning Presence that encompasses these elements of self-regulationBased on survey research with 3000+ students from 42 institutions Able to confirm a strong correlation exists between the three CoI elements and self-efficacy and self regulation based on student perceptions.
- This is a comparison of the learning activities in one module in a specific course.This module had a two part learning activityMain activity was a full class online debatePrior to this, students assigned to small groups to prepare a position paper that would be posted in the full class debate. You can see that the preparation area higher levels of Forethought & Planning, Monitoring and Strategy Use.
- Should note that these codes can be used to code both individual and group behaviors
- These indicators are closely aligned with metacognitive thinking That is – thinking about the process of thinking.The monitoring indicators represent metacognitive knowledge and provide different ways for individual or groups of students to be mindful of their engagement in a taskStrategies are usually decisions that put into use when as a result of monitoring
- Reflection can take place during an event, i.e., the students stops to think, monitor, or after the event is over.
- This shows the distribution of the LP measures by aggregated discussions and learning journalOnly discussions and journals had high levels of monitoringStrategy use was higher in discussionLow levels of reflection and no forethought and planningFor journals, reflection accounted for 23%, followed by strategy use.
- This network is based on all discussion postings from the 3 discussions in week 2 of Module 6Four students were central to the network: S05, S07, S13 and S17Students at center of network have most connections Note isolates in upper right – they did not participate in the discussionAnd instructor on the edge of the network, who made only one connection.
- Next, note that nodes sized to represent students with highest LP found in their 3 discussionsNote that three of them S05, S09 and S13 had the highest LP in the discussionStudent 15 also had higher LP, but had less interaction with other students.
- Same network, but nodes sized to show relative LP in learning journalsOf the five students with highest journal LP:One did not participate in the discussionThree were on the edge of the network – had fewer ties and less interactionOnly student 05 was central to the network
- We also compared student facilitators to non-facilitators Overall, they had higher average LP indicators compared to rest of class when we combined both journal and discussion LP
- Here, same network but again node size shows relative LP found in students’ discussion postingsStudent facilitators marked with triangleAs you can see two of the facilitators S09 and S13 have central network positions based on their connections with other studentsThese same twoS09 and S13 ranked among the top three in the classOther two ranked lower, but we believe they should have higher LP when they facilitated the discussion in the other week of the module
- Again node size shows relative amount of LP in journalsRemember students with higher LP in journals were on the edge of the network – they had less interaction.Overall the facilitators had lower journal LP with the exception of S02Only one at the periphery, who is the same student facilitator ranks highest in journal LP overallThe other facilitators ranked near the bottomMay be too much to expect elaborated reflection after their work to design and facilitate module activities and discussion
- Students had choice of watching a video related to their readings. One was on using drawing for field notes, the other was a recording of an interview.They were given a prompt that required them to integrate their readings with what they viewed.