Community of Inquiry II:New Research on the

Future of Online Learning

SLN SOLsummit MeetingFebruary, 2009

Peter SheaSLN Senior ResearcherEducational Theoryand Practice & CCIUniversity at Albany

Overview

• New research towards a theory of onlineteaching and learning.

• Research methods including– quantitative content analysis, social network

analysis, and cluster analysis• Goal: further our understanding of

pedagogical, social, and cognitiveprocesses essential for quality onlineeducation.

Overview: Community of InquiryFramework

> 1000 papers refer toCoI foundational studies

Community of Inquiry Framework

Social PresenceThe ability ofparticipantsto identify with thecommunity (e.g., courseof study), communicatepurposefully in a trustingenvironment, anddevelop inter-personalrelationships by way ofprojecting theirindividual personalities.

Cognitive PresenceThe extent to whichlearners are able toconstruct and confirmmeaning throughsustained reflectionand discourse in acritical community ofinquiry.

Teaching PresenceThe design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose ofrealizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes

Elements,Categories &Indicators

ELEMENTS CATEGORIES INDICATORS

(examples only)

Social Presence Open Communication Learning climate/r isk-free expression

Group Cohesion Group identity/ collaboration

Personal/Affective Self projection/e xpressing emotions

Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement

Exploration Information exchange

Integration Connecting ideas

Resolution Appl ying new ideas

Teaching Presence Design & Organization Setting curriculum & methods

Facilitating Discourse Shaping constructive exchange

Direct Instruction Clarifying, explaining, demonstrating

Questions

• Do instructor skills in teaching presencefoster students’ social presence?

• Do student experiences of teaching andsocial presence “predict” their experienceof cognitive presence?

Teaching Presence IndicatorsWhen the online instructor:

• Communicates course topics, goals, and due dates• Provides clear instructions• Helps students clarify their thinking• Keeps students on task, engaged, and participating• Encourages students to explore new ideas• Focuses discussion on issues that aided student learning• Establishes a sense of course community• Provides explanations or demonstrations to help learners better

understand the content• Gives helpful feedback• Asks for feedback on how the course could be improved

It leads to…

Social PresenceStudents:• gain a sense of belonging in the course• form distinct impressions of course participants• find online communication an excellent medium for social

interaction• are able to identify with the thoughts and feelings of other

students• feel comfortable conversing online• feel comfortable participating in discussions• feel comfortable interacting with course participants• feel comfortable disagreeing with others• online discussions helped students develop a sense of

collaboration• feel their points of view are acknowledged by others

Which in turn leads to…

Cognitive Presence• Course activities pique curiosity• Problems posed increase interest in course issues• Students feel motivated to explore content related topics• Students brainstorm & find relevant information to aid them in

resolving questions• Online discussions help students appreciate different perspectives• Combining new information helps students answer questions• Learning activities help students create solutions• Reflection on course content & discussions help students

understand fundamental concepts• Students can describe ways to test & apply their new knowledge• Students develop solutions to course problems that can be

applied in practice• Students can apply knowledge created in their courses to work or

other non-class related activities

Structural Equation Modeling

TeachingPresence

q12.38

q11.28

q10.24

q9.27

q8.18

q7.23

q6.19

q5.24

q4.53

q3.43

q2.40

q1.37

.89

1

.85

1

.87

1

.85

1

.90

1

.881

.901

.87

1.69

1

1

.78

1

.80

1

q13.46

.74

1

CognitivePresence

q34 .44

q33 .39

q32 .40

q31 .27

q30 .27

q29 .29

q28 .49

q27 .44

q26 .47

q25 .34

q24 ..36

q23 .48

.75

1

.78

1

.781

.851

.86

1.84

1

.72

1

.75

1

.721

.81

1

.80

1

.72

1

SocialPresence

q22

.40

q21

.38

q20

.41

q19

.18

q18

.29

q17

.27

q16

.62

q15

.67

q14

.65

.77

1

.78

1

.77

1

.91

1

.86

1

.85

1

.62

1

.58

1

.59

1

.52(.49)**

Gender Age AcademicLevel

.06(.04)*

.02(.08)**

.00(.01)

.06*

.00

.22**

.75

.52(.52)**

.49(.47)**

EffectsTable 2: Unstandardized Path Coefficient and Total Effects

Path Unstanderdized

Coefficient

Standardized

Coefficient

Direct Effects

Gender to Teaching Presence .06* .04*

Age to Teaching Presence .02** .08**

Academic Level to Teaching Presence .00 .01

Teaching Presence to Social Presence .52** .52**

Teaching Presence to Cognitive Presence .49** .47**

Social Presence to Cognitive Presence .52** .49**

Total Effects

Gender to Social Presence .03 .00

Gender to Cognitive Presence .05 .00

Age to Social Presence .01 .00

Age to Cognitive Presence .02 .00

Academic Level to Social Presence .00 .01

Academic Level to Cognitive Presence .00 .01

Teaching Presence to Cognitive Presence .77** .72**

Note. *p<.05, **p<.001

Weaknesses of Model

• Research methods limited/problematic• Based primarily in discussion• Limited to one form of presence at a time• Other areas of courses not considered• Model categories biased toward what can

be discovered in discussions

Solutions

• Need to look at other areas of courses• Use multiple methods

– QCA, SNA, Cluster Analysis• Goal is to code entire courses for

– TP SP CP simultaneously• Revise and expand these categories• Develop more comprehensive model• Build theory w/ dialogue between methods

Current study• The current study goes beyond prediction of

student reports of “presence”.• Quantitative content analysis of two complete

online courses with…• Low v Higher Instructor Presence• Goal: find TP, SP, and CP

patterns/associations in discussions andother courses areas.

• Determine if previous research results can beverified, refined, or extended.

Re-examining Affective Indicatorsfor Measuring Social Presence inthe COI Framework

Three Categories of Social PresenceIndicators (Garrison et al. 2000)

Activities that build andsustain a sense of groupcommitment; use ofgreetings, names, “us” or“we,” social sharing

Group Cohesion

Responses that build andsustain relationships; tacitexpressions of support,encouragement, andacceptance

Open Communications(Interactive Responses)

Expression of emotions,feelings, mood

Affective Expression

Courses and CodingProcess

Coding Process• Two coders• Coded random module for practice• Met to negotiate• Identified problems• Established and documented guidelines• Recoded original module• Message = unit of analysis• Coded for presence/absence of SP indicators:

AF, OC, CH or NC

Reflection on the course itselfSP-CH5Course Reflection

Sharing information unrelated to the courseSP-CH-4Social Sharing

Communication that serves a purely social function; greetings orclosures

SP-CH-3Phatics, salutations & greetings

Addresses the group as we., us, our, groupSP-CH-2Addresses or refers to the group

using inclusive pronouns

Addressing or referring to the participants by nameSP-CH-IVocativesGroup Cohesion (CH)

Offering specific advice to classmatesSP-OC-8Personal Advice

Expresses disagreement with other or contents of others messagesSP-OC7Expressing Disagreement

Expressing agreement with others or contents of others messagesSP-OC-6Expressing agreement

Complimenting others or contents of others' messagesSP-OC-5Complimenting. expressingappreciation

Students ask questions of other students or the moderatorSP•OC4Asking questions

Direct references to contents of others' postsSP-OC-3Referring explicitly to others'messages

Using software features to quote others' entire message or cut andpassing selections of others' messages

SP-OC-2Quoting from others' messages

Using reply feature of software, rather than starting a new threadSP-OC-1Continuing a threadOpen Communication(OC)

Expressing personal values, beliefs and attitudesSP-AF5Expressing values

Unconventional expressions of emotion. includes repetitiouspunctuation, conspicuous capitalization, emoticons

SP-AF4Use of unconventional expressionsto express emotion

Presents details of life outside of class, or expresses vulnerabilitySP-AF3Self-disclosure

Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements, sarcasmSP-AF2Use of humor

Conventional expressions of emotionSP-AFIExpressing emotionsAffective (AF)

DefinitionCodeIndicatorsSP Categories

Original Codes from Rourke et al. 1999. Swan et al. 2001 in blue

Instructor JYInstructor KS

2 to 3 postings a weekMinimum Number ofRequired Postings

1617Number of StudentsCompleting the Term

2019Number of StudentsAt Start of the Term

454490Total Number ofDiscussion Postings

One discussion from Modules 1-5Number ofDiscussions Coded

Approximately 2 weeksDuration ofDiscussions

Two Identical 15-week Courses

Initial and Negotiated Inter-rater Reliability using Cohen’s Kappa

Course A (KS) Course B (JY)Initial k Negotiated

kInitial k Negotiated

kModule 1 075 0.95 0.75 0.97Module 2 0.76 0.94 0.78 0.99Module 3 0.70 0.93 0.66 0.91Module 4 0.71 0.99 0.71 0.96Module 5 0.75 1 0.82 1

Initial and Negotiated Holsti’s Coefficient of Reliability

Course A (KS) Course B (JY)Initial Negotiated Initial Negotiated

Module 1 0.91 0.982857 0.90 0.981Module 2 0.91 0.980695 0.91 0.99Module 3 0.89 0.977778 0.87 0.97Module 4 0.89 0.998273 0.88 0.98Module 5 0.99 0.90411 0.93 1.00

.92.85With AF IndicatorsRemoved

.74.73With All SPCategories/Indicators

InstructorJY

InstructorKS

Pre-negotiatedaverage IRR* for 5Discussions

Number of Individual Student Indicators perModule

# ofstudents

Avgindicator per

studentJY AF OC CH indicators

Module 1 70 103 41 214 19 11.26Module 2 36 73 28 137 19 7.21Module 3 20 71 24 115 18 6.39Module 4 40 63 29 132 17 7.76Module 5 7 23 8 38 17 2.24Total 173 333 130 636

Number of Individual Student Indicators perModule

# ofstudents

Avgindicator

per studentKS AF OC CH indicators

Module 1 59 65 24 148 18 8.22Module 2 43 46 23 112 16 7.00Module 3 39 72 22 133 16 8.31Module 4 73 122 68 263 16 16.44Module 5 32 63 43 138 15 9.20Total 246 368 180 794

Findings•Overall increase in SP indicators in CourseKS•Overall decrease in SP indicators in CourseJY

Note: All numbers reflect negotiated occurrences ofindicator.

Previous Research• Swan (2003) found that Affective (AF) and

Open Communication (OC) increase overtime while Cohesive (C) indicatorsdecrease.

• Vaughan (2005) found that CH increasesover time while AF and OC decrease.

• Garrison & Arbaugh (2007) indicate that SPshould become more transparent over time.

Findings• All 3 indicators decreased in Course JY

• AF slowly declined, and OC and CHincreased in course KS.

• Preliminary findings on SP support all threeaforementioned patterns.

JY # of stud.Module 1 19Module 2 19Module 3 18Module 4 17Module 5 17

KS # of stud.Module 1 18Module 2 16Module 3 16Module 4 16Module 5 15

Note: All numbers reflect negotiated occurrences ofindicator.

Research Questions

How does:• instructor teaching presence correlate with

student social presence?• instructor social presence correlate with

student social presence?• instructor presence correlate with student

presence?

Instructor TP – Student SP

Instructor SP – Student SP

Total Posts: Teacher - Student

Conclusions

• Student presence tracks instructorpresence.

• Is this a better predictor of totalinteraction?

• Instructor SP is a better predictor ofstudent SP

• New direction for survey research?• Ask students to assess instructor SP as

well as or instead of TP?

Cluster Analysis

• Segment survey respondents into• Low, medium, high• TP, SP, CP• Look for patterns and associations

Cluster AnalysisClusters Item

Low Medium High

The instructor communicated course topics -.90 -.05 .75

The instructor communicated course goals -.89 -.08 .74

The instructor provided clear instructions -.89 -.04 .75

The instructor communicated due dates -.84 -.06 .67

The instructor helped students learn -1.05 -.07 .85

The instructor helped students clarify their thinking -1.05 -.05 .85

The instruct or kept students engaged & participating -1.04 -.06 .85

The instructor kept students on task -1.04 -.07 .87

The instructor encouraged students to explore new ideas -1.08 -.08 .83

The instructor established a sense of course community -1.01 -.07 .86

The instructor helped focus discussion on issues that aided student

learning

-.97 -.08 .80

The instructor gave feedback that helped students -1.03 -.07 .82

My instructor provided explanations or demonstrations to help me

better understand the content of the course.

-1.06 -.06 .84

My instructor provided feedback to the class during the

discussions or other activities to help us learn.

-1.04 -.06 .81

My instructor asked for feedback on how this course could be

improved.

-.87 -.05 .76

Total Number of Student s 520 1422 1682

TP and SP Correlate with CP

• Evidence of an equivalence model• Increase in SP correlates with higher CP• But better TP compensates for lower SP

CP X TP X SP and Type of Instruction

Significant Interaction

• Student who report low or medium TP inonline courses report lower CP than likestudents in hybrid courses.

• Students who report high TP in full onlinecourses report higher CP than studentwho report high TP in hybrid courses

Interaction

Social Network Analysis

• Method to determine the location ofparticipants within their network ofinteractions

• Measures of centrality, prestige, densityetc

• Can reveal who is contributing todiscourse and learning in significant ways

SNA: JY Module 1

SNA: Measures

Density

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

M01 M02 M03 M04 M05

Modules

De

ns

ity

(m

atr

ix a

ve

rag

e)

KS

JY

Other equivalencies

• Is SNA density roughly equivalent tostudent social presence measure?

• If so, an incredible time savingdevice…

• Can be computed automatically versus• Weeks of coding in QCA

Density

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

M01 M02 M03 M04 M05

Modules

De

ns

ity

(m

atr

ix a

ve

rag

e)

KS

JY

Social Network Visualizations

Next steps

• Coding TP and SP outside of discussions• Coding CP• Further dialogue between survey research

and QCA