The online community of inquiry model - what's next ?

Panel presentation

Cleveland-Innes, M.Garrison, D.R.Ice, P.Shea, P.Swan, K.

• Brief introduction of CoI framework M. Cleveland-Innes

• Issues and next steps with the development of the CoI framework

D.R. Garrison

• The place of emotional presenceM. Cleveland-Innes

• Learner characteristics and perceptions of social presenceK. Swan

• Socially rich technologies and the CoIP. Ice

• New research directions: An investigation of the CoI framework and the "Net Generation“

P. Shea

Agenda

Community of Inquiry

• Questioning• Reasoning• Connecting

• Deliberating• Challenging• Problem Solving

Lipman, 2003

The model is thoroughly social and communal ….. …. a method for integrating emotive experience, mental acts , thinking skills, and informal fallacies into a concerted approach to the improvement of reasoning and judgment.

Canadians

Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000

Community of Inquiry Framework

Social PresenceThe ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally as ‘real’ people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used.

Cognitive PresenceThe extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community

of inquiry.

Teaching PresenceThe design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose

of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000)

Ongoing research ad development

http://www.communitiesofinquiry.com/

Issues:Community of Inquiry Framework

Dr. Randy Garrison

Community Of Inquiry

• The importance of a community of inquiry is that, while the objective of critical reflection is intellectual autonomy, in reality, critical reflection is “thoroughly social and communal”.

» Lipman, 1991

Community of Inquiry Framework

Social PresenceThe ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally as ‘real’ people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used.

Cognitive PresenceThe extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community

of inquiry.

Teaching PresenceThe design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose

of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.

ELEMENTS CATEGORIES INDICATORS

(examples only) Social Presence Open Communication Learning climate/risk-free expression Group Cohesion Group identity/collaboration Personal/Affective Self projection/expressing emotions Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement Exploration Information exchange Integration Connecting ideas Resolution Appling new ideas Teaching Presence Design & Organization Setting curriculum & methods Facilitating Discourse Shaping constructive exchange Direct Instruction Focusing and resolving issues

CoI Categories/Indicators

Social Presence

• Social presence is defined as the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as “real’ people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used.

(Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000)

– Effect of medium not most salient factor (contrary to Short, et al., 1976)

SP Categories

• Open Communication

• Group Cohesion

• Affective Expression

Social Presence

• The ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities.

Questions

• Have we placed too much emphasis on social presence (SP) in supporting online and blended communities of inquiry??

• Is SP a required precursor to cognitive presence?

SP & Group Identity

• Purpose can be the basis of shared social identity (SP?).

• If the purpose of SP is to communicate and collaborate, salient group identity will increase group cohesion.

• A “salient personal identity could in fact undermine the shared group identity” (p. 153)

Rogers & Lea, 2005

Nature of a CoI?

• Learning space or social space?• “Their use of the medium was

functional, organized, time-driven, and carefully evaluated.” (Conrad, 2002)

• Manage “pathological politeness” (expectations & activities)

• Build community “judiciously” (takes time)

Cognitive Presence

Extent to which participants critically reflect, (re)construct meaning, and engage in discourse for the purpose of sharing meaning and confirming understanding.

Practical Inquiry Model

(Adapted from Garrison & Archer, 2000)

Questions

• How do we move inquiry beyond the exploration phase?

• Does metacognitive awareness enhance the rate of progression and quality of the inquiry process?

CP & Progression

• Greatest need for research.

• Cognitive presence is dependent upon purpose, collaboration and leadership.

• Progressing through the phases of inquiry can be greatly facilitated by an understanding of the expectations and the inquiry cycle.

Teaching Presence

The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.

TP Categories

• Design & Organization

• Facilitation

• Direct Instruction

Teaching Presence

• What is the role of teaching presence?

• How essential is TP?

How Essential?

• The body of evidence is growing rapidly attesting to the importance of teaching presence for successful online learning …

• The consensus is that teaching presence is a significant determinate of student satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community.

Contact Information

Dr. D. Randy Garrison

Director

Teaching & Learning Centre

University of CalgaryBioSciences Building

2500 University Drive NWCalgary, Alberta, Canada

T2N 1N4

Ph: 403-220-6764FAX: 403-282-0730

garrison@ucalgary.ca

The place of emotional presence

Dr. Martha. Cleveland-Innes

Community of Inquiry

• Questioning• Reasoning• Connecting

• Deliberating• Challenging• Problem Solving

Lipman, 2003

The model is thoroughly social and communal ….. …. a method for integrating emotive experience, mental acts , thinking skills, and informal fallacies into a concerted approach to the improvement of reasoning and judgment.

Social Presence ….

….. is defined as "the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people (i.e. their full personality), through the medium of communication being used”

Cohesive Behaviours Vocatives

Addresses or refers to the group using inclusive pronouns

Phatics, salutations

Interactive Behaviours Continuing a thread

Quoting from others’ messages.

Referring explicitly to others’ messages.

Asking questions

Complimenting, expressing appreciation

Expressing agreement

Affective Behaviours Expression of emotions

Use of humor

Self-disclosure

How emotional is the social ?

7/15 social expressions corresponded significantly to more positive ratings of the social environment.

• addressing others by name• complimenting• expressing appreciation• using the reply feature to post messages• expressing emotions• using humor• salutations.

Rourke & Anderson, 2000

“social-emotional literacy appears to be the most complicated of all types of digital literacy”

Eshet, 2004

“We argue that cognitive presence …is more easily sustained when a significant degree of social presence has been established”

Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000

Social or emotional presence?

…. COI model does allude to some aspects of instructor humanness, especially in the social presence component, perhaps there is room in this model for a more specific emphasis on the emotional presence. How can one have a true community without some aspect of emotional attachment or involvement in the lives of those who share that communal space?

Perry & Edwards, 2005

Emotions and Learning

“From brain research we know now that when we get emotional about a task we are involved in learning. Brain research has confirmed that emotions are linked to learning by assisting us in recall of memories that are stored in our central nervous system. “

“Practically speaking, this means as designers and educators need to create places that are not only safe to learn, but also spark some emotional interest through celebrations and rituals.”

Fielding, 2006

Data points

1. Exploratory study of the impact of a concurrent participatory online workshop about emotion

2. Re-examined pre-post questionnaires and CMC transcripts

3. Extensive multi-disciplinary literature review 4. Student/instructor interviews regarding emotion

online5. Evaluation of EP items crossed referenced to initial

elements

Definitions

Affect: influence or action in relationship to feelings and emotions.

Emotions: unconscious states that arise spontaneously.

Feelings: the conscious expression of emotion.

Noticeable emotions online

Delight Emphasis Excitement Yearning Passion Desire / hope Unhappiness Humor

Pride Enjoyment Like Dislike Thankfulness Appreciation Preference Irony / sarcasm

DELIGHT/HAPPINESS I have absolutely no complaints and really only praise!

EXCITEMENT I love the medium! For a non-verbal processor who needs time to think before replying this is an absolutely perfect way to learn. Being hostage in a classroom of folks who think out loud is painful for me, so this particular format is lovely.

YEARNING/WISHING In the face-to-face environment my favorite words are "what do you mean by that? Please explain." I miss that in on-line discussion (my question seems unimportant).

UNHAPPINESS I think that I was sometimes confused by interactions with others and even offended at times when people expressed ideas and opinions that were dismissive of others or even blatantly discriminatory in nature. Had I been a less driven individual, such experiences may have caused me to quit the program.

Emotional Presence

Indicators of emotional presence

• Emotion was expressed when connecting with other students. (EP in SP)

• The instructor acknowledged emotion expressed online by students. (EP in TP)

• Expressing emotion in relation to expressing ideas was acceptable in this course. (EP in CP)

• I felt comfortable expressing emotion through the online medium. (EP in SP)

• The instructor demonstrated emotion in online presentations and/or discussions. (EP in TP)

• I found myself responding emotionally about ideas or learning activities in this course. (EP in CP).

Definition of Emotional Presence

The outward expression of emotion by individuals, and among individuals, in a community of inquiry, as they relate to and interact with course content, peers and the instructor.

Cleveland-Innes, 2007

ReferencesDamasio, A. R. (1995). Descartes' error: emotion reason and the human

brain. New York: Quill.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a

text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. In Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2). pp 87-105. Retrieved September 14, 2006 from http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/cmc/CTinTextEnvFinal.pdf

LeDoux, J. (2002). The synaptic self: how our brains become who we are. New York: Penguin.

Lehman, R. (2006). The role of emotion in creating Instructor and learner presence in the distance education experience. Journal of Cognitive Affective Learning, 2(2) (Spring 2006), 12-26. Retrieved September 14 from: https://www.jcal.emory.edu//viewarticle.php?id=45&layout=html

O’Regan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 78-92. Retrieved September 14, 2006 from: http://www.sloan-corg/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_oregan.pdf#search=%22%22Emotion%20and%20E-Learning%22%22

Karen Swan, Kent State University

LiFang Shih, University at Albany

A Rose is Only a Rose if I Think So: Learner Characteristics &

Perceptions of Social Presence

social presence

• the degree to which participants in computer mediated communication feel socially and emotionally connected

• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into an online community of inquiry

research to date

• social presence can be (strongly) felt by participants in computer-mediated communication(Walther, 1994; Gunawardena, 1995; Tu & McIsaac, 2002)

• and projected into text-based asynchronous discussion using verbal immediacy indicators alone(Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001; Swan, 2002; 2003)

research to date

• perceptions of social presence are linked to student satisfaction in online courses

(Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson,1997; Tu, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003)

• and to (perceived) learning from them(Walther, 1994; Gunawardena, 1995; Picciano, 2002)

but – (how) do perceptions of social presence vary among learners?

• What factors influence perceptions of social presence?

• How do students perceiving differing levels of social presence project themselves into online discussion?

• How do students perceiving differing levels of social presence conceptualize online discussion?

subjects & setting

• 54 (/94) graduate education students enrolled in 4 classes complete online survey (2/3 female; 2/3 with online experience; ages 21-50)

MM CE

Instructor A

Instructor B

online survey

• demographic & experiential information• respondents asked to rate agreement

with statements (1-5 Likert scale) concerning:– perceived presence of peers (8)– perceived presence of instructor (5)– satisfaction with instructor (1)– perceived learning (4)– perceived interaction (1)

results

analysis of variance reveals significant differences between courses (but not classes or instructors)

only differences between groupings by student characteristics related to age (and not gender, online experience, time spent in course)

results

quantitative comparison reveals meaningful differences in perceptions between subjects

perceiving the most & least presence

perc.learning

perc. interaction

perc. SP of instrs.

instructor satisfact.

low SP group 3.2 3.0 3.7 4.0

high SP group 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.0

qualitative analyses

• 5 subjects with the highest combined social presence of peers ratings & 5 with the lowest combined ratings were identified for qualitative analyses

• content analysis of selected subjects’ use of social presence indicators in discussion postings using Swan’s (2002, 2003) coding protocols & Rourke, et al.’s (2001) social presence density index

• structured interviews of selected subjects via email and phone analyzed using thematic cross-case analysis

results

affective interactive cohesive total

low SP group 17.5 6.7 4.4 28.6high SP group 26.3 10.0 6.0 42.3

quantitative content analysis reveals meaningful differences in social presence densities between

subjects perceiving the most & least presence

resultsthematic content analyses

• all students reported changing communication styles to adjust to asynchronous format, but while high social presence subjects adopted a more conversational style, low social presence subjects adopted a more formal style

resultsthematic content analyses

• all students reported learning from discussions, but while high presence group believed they learned from others’ postings, low presence group thought they learned solely by articulating their own ideas

“When I first read and responded to a discussion question I felt that I had written all that I could on the subject. After reading other people’s comments on the same question, I was able to take in different viewpoints and see if it was something that I agreed with or totally disagreed with. Without class discussions I would have never thought twice about the question that I had just answered.”

student perceiving high social presence

“Some of the responses I read led me to believe that some of the students in the class were either ignorant about the subject matter, or too stubborn in their way of thinking to take the class content seriously.”

student perceiving low social presence

resultsthematic content analyses

• all students appreciated being asked to relate course concepts to personal experience, but only high presence group reported learning from others’ experiences

“You can learn a lot from people who offer to tell of their personal experiences and often you can get a person that may have had that experience themselves and offer to share their version. Since you are not seeing the people you are interacting with, there has to be a way to make the online experience personable and enjoyable.”

student perceiving high social presence

“In class, you know, people come to class so that you could see who is there and who is not, whereas online it was not the case because you couldn't see their faces. I couldn't put any names with any of them, and sometimes, you know, there were two people who had the same names and it was difficult to tell who was who.”

student perceiving low social presence

conclusions

• course design can affect development of social presence

• age might also be a factor

conclusions

• perceptions of presence are linked to its presentation

• students with differing perceptions of perceiving have different conceptions of online discussion

implications for practice

• further research is clearly indicated on relationship between learner characteristics & perceptions of social presence

• courses should be designed for development of social presence

• special attention should be paid to faculty development and student orientations

Research Center for Educational

Technology

kswan@kent.edu

SOCIAL PRESENCE OF PEERS

1. Online or web-based education is an excellent medium for social interaction.2. I felt comfortable conversing through this medium.3. The “Meet Your Classmates” section enabled me to form a sense of online community.4. I felt comfortable participating in course discussions.5. I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the course.6. I felt that other participants in the course acknowledged my point of view.7. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of some course participants.8. Online discussions enabled me to form a sense of community.

SOCIAL PRESENCE OF INSTRUCTORS

9. The instructor created a feeling of online community.10. The instructor facilitated discussions in the course.11. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of the

instructor in this course.12. I felt comfortable conversing with the instructor through

this medium.13. My point of view was acknowledged by the instructor.

INSTRUCTOR SATISFACTION14. The instructor in this course met my expectations.

PERCEIVED LEARNING

15. I was able to learn from the online discussions. 16. I was stimulated to do additional reading or research on

topics discussed in the online discussions. 17. Participating in the online discussions was a useful

experience. 18. Participating in the online discussions enabled me to

form multiple perspectives.

PERCEIVED INTERACTIVITY

19. I thought there was a great deal of interaction in the online discussions.

paralanguage (PL)

features of text outside formal syntax used to convey emotion (eg. emoticons, punctuation)

Someday . . . . .; How awful for you :-( ; Mathcad is definitely NOT stand alone software; Absolutely!!!!!!

Asteroff, 1985; Poole, 2000; Rourke, 2001

emotion (EM)

use of descriptive words that indicate feelings (ie., love, hate, sad, silly, etc.)

When I make a spelling mistake, I look and feel stupid; I get chills when I think of. . .

emergent

value(VL)

expressing personal values beliefs, & attitudes

I think that commercialization is a necessary evil; I feel our children have the same rights

emergent

humor(H)

use of humor – teasing, cajoling, irony, sarcasm

God forbid leaving your house to go to the library; Now it is like brushing my teeth (which I assure you I do quite well)

Gorham, 1988; Poole, 2000

self-disclosure

(SD)

sharing personal information, expressing vulnerability

I sound like an old lady; I am a closet writer; We had a similar problem. . .

Gorham, 1988; Rourke, 1999AFFECTIVE INDICATORS

greetings &

salutations (GS)

greetings, closures Hi Mary; That’s it for now, Tom

Poole, 2000; Rourke, 2001

vocatives (V)

addressing classmates by name

You know, Tamara. . . ; I totally agree with you Katherine

Christenson & Menzel, 1988; Poole, 2000

group reference

(GR)

refering to the group as we, us, our

We need to be educated; Our use of the Internet may not be free

Gorham, 1988; Rourke, 2001

social sharing

(SS)

sharing information unrelated to the course

Happy Birthday!!to both of you!!!

Bussman, 1998; Rourke, 2001

course reflection

(RF)

reflection on the course itself

A good example was the CD-ROM we read about

emergent

COHESIVE INDICATORS

acknowledge-ment (AK)

refering directly to the contents of others’ messages; quoting

Those old machines sure were something!; I agree that it is the quickest way

Rourke, 2001

agreement/ disagreement

(AG)

expressing agreement or disagreement with others’ messages

I’m with you on that; I agree;

I think what you are saying is absolutely right

Poole, 2000; Rourke, 2001

approval(AP)

expressing approval, offering praise, encouragement

You make a good point; Good luck as you continue to learn; Right on!

Rourke, 2001

invitation(I)

asking questions or otherwise inviting response

Any suggestions?; How old are your students?; Would you describe that for me

Gorham, 1988; Rourke, 2001

personal advice

(PA)

offering specific advice to classmates

Also the CEC website might have some references; I would be happy to forward them

emergent

INTERACTIVE INDICATORS

STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

What did you think about when you were preparing to post a message to the course discussion? Did you think about how you would sound to others? Did you think about how what you say would influence how others think of you?

Did you use any strategies to put “personal” touches in your messages? If so, why did you want to make yourself sound more personal in online discussions?

How did the ways other students wrote their messages influence your impressions of them? Did others’ language use influence that of yours? If so, how?

What did you think about when you were responding to others’ messages?

Did you chose certain people to respond to? Have you built a sense of bonding with those students?

Do you think a sense of bonding is important to learning in asynchronous learning environments? Why or why not?

What were the criteria you used while choosing which messages to respond to?

What are your impressions of your instructor? How were these impressions formed?

From my observation of the online class discussions, I noticed that your instructor encouraged you to refer to your personal experiences while answering most of the questions? What do you think about this? Do you think this made the discussions more personal?

Did your instructor's style of writing influence the way you constructed your messages in the class? If so, how?

Did you notice that your instructor did not often participate in the class discussions? What do you think about this? Do you think they none-the-less facilitated the class discussions? If so, how?

Would you prefer your instructor to participate in discussions publicly instead of giving private personal feedback to your postings? Why or why not?

Do you think it is important that you have regular and personal interaction with your instructor? Why or why not?

As the tone of your voice is not available in the online environment, did you find it as a big constraint when communicating with your peers? If so, what did you do to overcome the constraints?

Socially Rich Technologies Socially Rich Technologies & the CoI Framework& the CoI Framework

Phil Ice

University of North Carolina Charlottepice@uncc.edu

Basis of the CoI

• Grounded in understanding the cognitive and social processes in largely text-based, computer-mediated environments (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001)

• Premised on the ability of participants to project their personalities and intent through text alone (Swan, 2002)

What is lacking?

• Relative low richness of text-based communication may make ambiguous / open ended tasks more difficult (Arbaugh, 2005)

• Lack of paralinguistic cues prevents the use of certain types of informal language that is dependent upon nuance (Liu, Bonk, Magiuka, Lee & Su, 2005)

Technology’s Impact –Audio Feedback as an Example

• The use of audio feedback was found to:– Be more effective than text in conveying

nuance.– Increase feelings of involvement and

community– Impact content retention and application– Increase perceptions of instructor caring(Ice, Curtis, Phillips & Wells, 2007)

Audio and the CoI

• The following slides compare the findings of the Summer, 2007 multi-institutional CoI instrument validation (n = 287) and a subgroup (n = 63) that received audio feedback but were not included in the larger study

• In the items addressed there was a significant difference (p > .05) in responses

Teaching Presence 1

• 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 = 4.41

Teaching Presence 2

• The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.– Summer 2007 / mean = 4.44– Audio group / mean = 4.63

Teaching Presence 3

• Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.– Summer 2007 / mean = 4.36– Audio group / mean = 4.52

Teaching Presence 4

• 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 = 4.64

Social Presence

• Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.– Summer 2007 / mean = 3.90– Audio group / mean = 4.33

Cognitive Presence 1

• I felt motivated to explore content related questions.– Summer 2007 / mean = 4.31– Audio group / mean = 4.52

Cognitive Presence 2

• Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.– Summer 2007 / mean = 4.37– Audio group / mean = 4.50

Questions Remain

• More research is currently being conducted to determine what accounts for the changes noted

• Hypothesis – Socially rich media / technologies make online learning more effective by allowing participants to enhance their ability to project personality traits

Further Research

• How do www2 technologies impact the CoI?

• How does virtual reality impact the CoI?

• Can the CoI be used to assess the effectiveness of new technologies / techniques in online courses?

New research directions: An New research directions: An investigation of the CoI framework and investigation of the CoI framework and

the "Net Generation”the "Net Generation”

Dr. Peter Shea

University at Albany, State University of New York

Research results related to age

• Research on the generations done at UCF and elsewhere

• EDUCAUSE - new book – free and downloadable – “Educating the Net Generation…”

• Quick hide: The Millenials are coming!

Evidence from SUNY

• Other data on the issue of age and online student satisfaction –

• N = 24,231• 40 colleges in SUNY – 2yr,

4yr, Grads• Similar to UCF results…

Satisfaction with OL Courses

Satisfaction by age

implications of research on satisfaction by age

• New research on “net generation” (e.g. Dede, 2005)

• New learning styles? Heightened expectations…

• Based on long-term exposure to technology-mediated environments

What they are getting…text…

What they want/need…immersive multimedia

What they want/need…immersive multimedia

Evidence in support of age and “multimedia” effects on online

student satisfaction

Evidence from SUNY studies

• N = 24,231• 40 colleges in SUNY – • Community colleges• Four year colleges• Graduate schools

Satisfaction by “course used multimedia” (more is better…)

Online degree? by age (Net Gen doesn’t want what we are offering?)

But is age really that important?

Correlations with student satisfaction in online courses and (n=24,231):

Weak correlations:

Gender (r=.08)Age (r=-.09)Employment (r=.08)Distance (r=.-08)Computer Skills (r=.03)

Everyone likes multimedia, not just “net gen” (but presence of multimedia is not (yet?) a strong correlate of online student satisfaction)

Recent Research on CoI and Age

• Youngest age group (18-25) scored lower on teaching presence than both older age groups

• Both older age groups also reported greater cognitive presence

• Youngest students also reported the least cognitive presence

• But…• When age is held constant and student ratings of

the CoI factors are added to the regression equation, the four CoI factors completely mediate the effect of age on learning and overall satisfaction.

Recent Research on CoI and Age

• Age less important to both satisfaction and learning online

• Far more important:• Orchestration of the learning environment

for high degrees of teaching, social, and cognitive presence

• This orchestration is under the control of the instructor and, when done well, the community of learners participating in the class.