coi for tech and id

Phil Ice, Ed.D.

SLN SOL Summit

Syracuse, 2010

Using the CoI to Assess

ID Strategies

and New

Technologies in Online

Courses

Community of Inquiry Frameworka process model of learning in online

and blended educational environments

grounded in a collaborative constructivist view of higher education

assumes effective online learning requires the development of a community of learners that supports meaningful inquiry and deep learning

social presence cognitive presence

teaching presence

LEARNING

Social Presence

the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally -- as ‘real’ people

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

Social Presence - Elements

affective expression (expressing emotion, self-projection)

open communication (learning climate, risk free expression)

group cohesion (group identity, collaboration)

Cognitive Presence

the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry

Cognitive Presence - Elementstriggering event (sense of puzzlement)

exploration (sharing information & ideas)

integration (connecting ideas)

resolution (synthesizing & applying new ideas)

Teaching Presence

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

Teaching Presence - Elementsdesign and organization (setting

curriculum & activities)

facilitation (shaping constructive discourse)

direct instruction (focusing & resolving issues)

Community of Inquiry Survey9 social presence items (3 affective

expression, 3 open communication, 3 group cohesion)

12 cognitive presence items (3 triggering, 3 exploration, 3 integration, 3 resolution)

13 teaching presence items (4 design & facilitation, 6 facilitation of discourse, 3 direct instruction)

CoI Survey Validation

tested in graduate courses at four institutions in the US and Canada

principal component factor analysis

three factor model predicted by CoI framework confirmed

Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, Shea & Swan - 2008

Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (draft v15)Developed by Ben Arbaugh, Marti Cleveland-Innes, Sebastian Diaz, Randy

Garrison, Phil Ice, Jennifer Richardson, Peter Shea & Karen Swan

Teaching PresenceDesign & Organization1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topi2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities.4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities.

Facilitation of Discourse5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that

helped me to learn.6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that

helped me clarify my thinking. 7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue.8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn.9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.

Direct Instruction11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn.12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. 13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.

Social PresenceAffective Expression

14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.

Open communication17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. 18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. 19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.

Group cohesion20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust.21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. 22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.

Cognitive PresenceTriggering Even23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues.

24. Course activities piqued my curiosity.

25. I felt motivated to explore content related questions.

Exploration26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course.

27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions.

28. Discussing course content with my classmates was valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.

Integration29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities.

30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.

31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.

Resolution32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.

33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.

34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.

Promises Promises

Flavor’s of the Day

Cloud computing and virtualized applications have tremendous promise

However – the rise to prominence is so rapid that adequate evaluation is difficult

Longevity OR extensibility need to be considered prior to adoption to maximize ROI

New Applications are Good

New applications that impact learning are better

Higher Education often lags out of an abundance of caution

Academics want to see learning outcomes before they are willing to adopt

Give your faculty what they want

What Adoption Looks Like

Who Adopts

Sometimes a Little is EnoughThe potential for overkill exists

Just because extremely rich apps exist doesn’t mean they are always needed

Remember that distance learners are isolated from the instructor and classmates physically

This may be by choice

But they still want some contact

Audio Feedback

Pilot Study revealed the following benefits of providing asynchronous audio feedback using Acrobat Pro:

THEME 1 – Ability to understand nuance.

THEME 2 – Feelings of increased involvement.

THEME 3 – Increased content retention.

THEME 4 – Instructor caring.

Audio Feedback & the CoI

The following slides compare the findings of the multi-institutional CoI sample (n = 1085) that received text-based feedback and responses from a multi-institutional sample(n = 1138) that received audio feedback

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

Teaching Presence

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 = 4.43

The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.



Teaching Presence

The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the course’s goals and objectives.



Social Presence

Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.



Cognitive Presence

I felt motivated to explore content related questions.



Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.



CollaborativeTools

SaaS Word Processors

Two online, graduate level education courses (combined n=78) students were asked to complete assignments (mean page count = 9.75 pages), alternating Word and Buzzword as the creation and submission mechanism.

Buzzword is an online document editor that is a part of Acrobat.com

Document Analysis

average use of non-text based resources (e.g. hyperlinks, graphics, tables, etc.) was 5.1 for Word submissions and 14.3 for Buzzword based submissions.

Cognitive Presence Indicators

Exploration Integration Resolution

Word 10.8 3.3 2.3

Buzzword 11.2 6.2 5.1

Interview Data

Buzzword’s ease of use (as compared to Word) cited as primary reason for inclusion of more links, graphics, etc.

Majority (n = 12) indicated that it was easier for them to express complex concepts using multimedia.

Interview Data

The concept of a Buzzword being a personal reflective space was common among 72% of students over 34 years old.

As an example these students frequently developed a document on their own and then shared it with classmates.

82% of students 34 and younger recognized it as a collaborative tool and began workflow projects by sharing a common document.

Qualitative analysis revealed that these younger students frequently (68%) likened Buzzword to a Wiki or similar collaborative tool. In contrast, only 27% of older students made this association.

ExplainingCoI

Survey Data

Understanding Why

The CoI survey and rubrics based off of it can tell you what is happening but not why

Other measures are needed

Grading Rubrics and Student Interviews make great sources of data

Involve your faculty – this is data they may already have

Rich Internet Application StudyFull Sail University – Web Design and

Development Program

Study conducted in Deployment of Flash Projects Course

Implement Flash via Multiple Deployment Types

HTML-based Deployments with Flash Content

Full Flash Deployments using FlashPlayer and AIR Runtime

Significant gains on 4 Cognitive Presence items – positive for RIA’s over conventional HTML applications

Grading Rubric Differences

Aesthetics

Layout

Follow Through

Craftsmanship

Validation

Architecture

Functionality

Significant Difference – 34.1% increase


No Significant Difference


No Significant Difference



Student Interview Data

11 Participants

Level of engagement

Perceived Learning

Level of thought required

Applicability to future coursework and career

Student Interview Data

Cursory Data Analysis

All believed Photo Viewer activity to be more engaging

9 believed they learning more from Photo View activity

All believed Photo View activity required more higher order thought

9 believed Photo Viewer activity would be more relevant to the career ambitions

• Director of Course Design, Research & Development

• American Public University System• [email protected]

Designing for

Meaningful Learning

mailto:[email protected]

Socio-Epistemological Orientations

Social – Group vs. Individual

EpistemologicalObjectivist – lower order thought

processes vis-à-vis Bloom’s TaxonomyConstructivist – higher order thought

processes vis-à-vis Bloom’s Taxonomy

Student satisfaction and perceptions of Community may be impacted by the instructors Socio-Epistemological orientation – as projected in content and interactivity

(Arbaugh & Benbunnan-Fich, 2006)

Setting and Coding

American Public University System – fully online institution

Eight undergraduate and eight graduate level courses were coded for epistemological orientationsLower three levels of Bloom’s coded as

objectivistHigher three levels of Bloom’s coded as

constructivistCoding of all course activities and

discussionsMajority of indicators determined

classification

Sample and Data Collection

CoI Survey administered for six course terms in all sections of courses that were coded

N = 4397Undergraduate – 2576Graduate – 1821

Factor Analysis ran:OverallBy levelBy courseBy five year age bandsBy clusters – defined by school

Research Question

Does epistemological orientation influence factor loading patterns?

Are other variables responsible for factor loading patterns?

Impetus – despite validation of the CoI in 2008, a few subsequent factor analyses have produced a two factor solutionAnecdotal evidence – two factor solution

appeared among groups where the emphasis was on training as opposed to true knowledge acquistion

Findings I

Factor analysis of all courses combined produced a three factor solution

Factor analysis of all undergraduate courses combined produced a three factor solution

Factor analysis of all graduate courses combined produced a three factor solution

Factor analysis of individual courses (n range of 221 - 405) produced a three factor solution

Factor analysis by school produced three factor solutions

Findings II

Age banding 18 - 22, 23 - 27, 28 - 32, 33 - 37, 38 - 42, 43 - 47, 48 - 52, 53 - 57, 58 – 62

Undergraduate maximum age band = 43 – 47

Graduate minimum age band = 23 – 27

Findings III

Factor analysis by age band18 - 22 produce a 2 factor solution

regardless of epistemological orientation or course level

23 - 37 produce 3 factor solution regardless of epistemological orientation or course level

38 - 62 overall produce a 3 factor solution overall

38 - 47 produce a 2 factor solution when the epistemological orientation is objectivist

38 - 47 produce a 3 factor solution when the epistemological orientation is constructivist

48 - 62 produce a 2 factor solution regardless of epistemological orientation or course level

Observations

Students between 23 - 37 appear to find ways to collaborate or view learning as a collaborative process regardless of level

Students 18 - 22 appear to view teaching and cognitive presence as the same construct regardless of course orientation

Students 48 - 62 appear to view teaching and cognitive presence as the same construct

Students 38 - 47 appear to be influenced by the epistemological orientation of course materials and activities

Future Research I

How does the perception of learning activities differ between students 23 – 27 years old and their peers

Why do students 18 - 22 not transfer native social networking and collaboration skills to learning

How can life skills be used to leverage learning for students 48 - 62 years old

Why is epistemological orientation significant for students 38 - 47 and not other age groupings

Future Research II

Multi-institutional data

Substantial qualitative work

Hierarchical linear modeling

• Director of Course Design, Research & Development

• American Public University System• [email protected]

Thank You!Phil Ice, Ed.D.Director of Course Design, Research & DevelopmentAmerican Public University [email protected]

