This is the literature review from my graduate portfolio titled:
THE DIFFERENCE IN COMMUNITY BETWEEN SYNCHRONOUS,
ASYNCHRONOUS, AND BLENDED ONLINE CLASS
CHAPTER
II
A
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Our world is changing. Every day there are more new products and
ideas that give us cause to wonder. One
area that has changed at a remarkable speed is that of computer
technology. The growing number of ways
to use the Internet has become a topic of discussion for professionals in many
fields, including the field of education.
One area for which educators have been using the Internet is for
distance courses. Few teachers are
trained in long-distance classes (e-learning) or how the change in format affects
their students. But before teachers can
be trained, an agreement of what practices are best needs to be decided.
The popularity of e-learning
exists due to technology that makes learning available to those who have been
unable to learn because of their location, socioeconomic circumstances,
disability, and schedules (Holmes & Gardner, 2006). The number of college distance students has
risen markedly over the past decade.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2011) the
percentage of undergraduate students who took any distance course rose from 16
percent in 2003-04 to 20 percent in 2007-08.
Meanwhile, elementary and secondary schools who see distance education
as a way to combat the problems of overcrowding and students’ demands for
Advanced Placement, college-level courses, and individualized schedules also
rose from an estimated 317,070 students in 2002-03 to 506,950 students in 2004-05
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).
As our world becomes more focused on
the technological side of life, instructors need to be aware of the ways the
online class differs from the traditional face-to-face class in order to reach
students as effectively as they can. One
aspect that changes is the level of interaction. This is described as occurring in three
different areas: social interaction between the different students (social
presence), social interaction between the students and their instructor
(teacher presence), and cognitive interaction between the students and the
information being learned (cognitive presence).
This portfolio will explore the
ideas of presence with a focus on the relationship between social presence and
perceived learning while showing the history of the field and some of the ideas
contained within it. Information for this
literature review was gathered from searches of several databases including
library online catalogs, ABI/INFORM (Business), Academic Search Premier,
Emerald FullText, and ERIC (Education) using search terms which included
community of inquiry, online instruction, teaching,
online learning, and immediacy.
Moving to the
Online Environment
When students are together
physically, they can easily see each other as individuals and assess the social
status of their classmates. The
classroom’s oral communication contains gestures, breaks, intonation, and body
language which we are skilled in reading.
When working online, this is more difficult (Slagter van Tryon &
Bishop, 2009). Garrison, Anderson and
Archer (2000) also voice concerns over the change from oral communication to
text-based. Not only does oral
communication provide the above cues, but it provides a richer environment when
it comes to the social and emotional aspects.
In the end, those who are skilled in oral communications may prefer the
traditional classroom while those who prefer the written word may prefer the
online class (Salmon, 2000). But this is
not the only change seen by researchers.
Hudson
and Bruckman (2004) found that moving conversations from the classroom to the
online environment caused behavioral changes amongst participants. One change observed was in self-
awareness. In the traditional classroom,
students are aware of an audience making judgments of their actions. This often increased their level of
self-awareness. In contrast, students
did not feel the same judgment in the online class, thus reducing their
feelings of self-awareness. This is change
would affect many students’ behavior due to their level of confidence. It may be that students worry in traditional
classes because they give their audience cues, such as pausing or stammering,
when they make mistakes. When using the
online format, students can reflect about what they have written, and make
desired changes, before allowing others to view it. Another finding of Hudson and Bruckman’s was
that students engaged in several small conversations instead of one large
conversation. They could continue the
discussions that were interesting to them, instead of being forced to move on
when the instructor felt the class was ready for something else.
Types of Classes
Online learning management systems
(LMSs) provide the instructor with a shell to place course content and offer
different methods to deliver information.
Students may access materials, interact with their instructor and
collaborate with each other in several ways, some synchronous, some
asynchronous (Holmes & Gardner, 2006).
The LMS allows students to do the three things felt to be necessary for
them to learn in the online environment: interact with
the instructor, other learners, and the content (Dennen, Darabi, &
Smith, 2007).
The
most basic kind of asynchronous lessons contain text-based chat sessions that any
participants can contribute. The
asynchronous method of learning allows students to access their classes
“anytime” via the Internet by using systems such as discussion threads,
structured groups, bulletin boards and computerized conferencing. In this method the sending and receiving of
information and comments are separated in time.
In order for students to learn effectively, the technology must support
the ability for students to engage in collaborative social/pedagogical
processes (Hiltz & Turoff, 2002; Hiltz, Harasim, & Turoff, 2007). Participants can see who else is online at
the same time, they can address messages to one or more participants, and they
can see messages appear on the screens of the addressee almost as soon as they
are sent. In this method, participants
can reply very quickly or wait with their reply. This time delay can allow participants to
explore before formatting their reply (Salmon, 2000). However, the lack of immediacy can be frustrating
for participants. Responses to postings
may take hours or days. This delayed
response may worry the sender as to whether the message was received to not
found worthy of a reply (Hiltz, Harasim, & Turoff, 2007).
During synchronous classes, students meet at the same time with their instructor. All communications are immediate and all participate in the same conversations and hear or see the same information. This style of class allows participants to feel as though there is immediate contact with others (Salmon, 2000).
During synchronous classes, students meet at the same time with their instructor. All communications are immediate and all participate in the same conversations and hear or see the same information. This style of class allows participants to feel as though there is immediate contact with others (Salmon, 2000).
Problems Found
The online environment consists of
different social norms than what most students are used to. The usual mechanisms for communication and
assessing social concerns are not always available. Instead, there is a lack of auditory and
visual cues combined with asynchronicity and a dependence on the text-based
format. Nicol, Minty, and Sinclair
(2003) explored the lack of facial cues in the online class and found that
students felt less pressure to contribute during online discussions. In addition, students felt they could be more
selective in with whom to communicate or could even hide online.
Another
stumbling block to learning is what Slagter van Tryon and Bishop call “channel
noise” (Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2009, p. 307). Channel noises are the items which interfere
with a student’s ability to pay attention to their cognitive resources. They describe social aspect as one type of
channel noise while the reliance on text-based communication is another. When dealing with text, it is much easier for
students to misunderstand each other, which makes learning collaboratively more
difficult. Slagter van Tryon and Bishop
feel that instructors must provide opportunities for students to interact often
on a deeper level so that the group may establish its own norms of social
interaction which can lead to learning.
Student
Perceptions
In
2009, Hill, Song, and West asked how much interaction between students is
needed, what kind of interactions they should be, and how these interactions
may influence the learning process.
Their findings claim that some students felt the social interactions to
be “forced and unnatural” (Hill, et al., 2009, p.91). They concluded that the four significant
areas that affect social learning as it pertains to knowledge are: “epistemological
beliefs, individual learning styles, self-efficacy, and motivation” (Hill, et
al., 2009, p. 95). In a similar way,
when Jianfei, Tregonning, and Keenan (2008) asked Canadian physicians about
their participation in online social activities and learning discussions, just
35% felt more connected to others while 16% did not feel any closer. Eighteen percent stated that they were not
interested in participating at all. Only
45% reported that participating in discussions more would help them learn more. Powell, Tindal and Millwood (2008) found that
there was a marked difference in the students’ preferences in participation;
some became active in larger communities while others selected small groups
with a deep level of trust between members.
Data
analysis from 73 courses offered in
1999 showed that three factors were significantly related to student
perceptions: “clarity and consistency in course design, contact with and
feedback from course instructors, and active and valued discussion” (Swan,
2002, p. 44). Her study also showed that
when comparing student satisfaction, perceived learning, perceived interaction
with the instructor, and perceived interaction with peers, that the strongest
relationship was between student satisfaction and perceived learning. Students who rated their level of
participation highly also reported a high level of both course satisfaction and
perceived learning. As may be expected,
students who rated their course satisfaction and perceived learning the lowest
also rated their own participation as low.
In addition, students who rated their own level on interaction with
classmates as high had significantly higher levels of both course satisfaction
and perceived learning. So the question
arises of how to convince students to interact and how much this interaction
may affect their learning outcomes. Many
researchers have developed learning models in an attempt to address this part
of the problem.
Learning Models
In 2000, Salmon found that some
students who normally contribute in the traditional classroom were not
comfortable contributing in the inline environment while other students
preferred the ability to change their messages before submitting them. She designed a five-stage model that promotes
learning with different amounts of interactivity. In this model, participants begin to support
each other’s goals in stage three and grow more collaborative during the final
two stages. During Salmon’s fourth
stage, participants may interact in a more exposed and participative way. The share their ideas about the topic, read
and respond to others frequently and many engage in very active learning. She observed that students widened their own
concepts and theories through debating and sharing examples with others. She also grouped students into one of three
types. The “swimmers” are willing to
help others, dive in early, have online class experience, and often know other
computer systems. The “wavers” often
need help or encouragement, depend on help lines, and come late but do become
active once helped. While the “drowners”
find it tough to ask for help, are not motivated, complain that the work is
irrelevant or too time-consuming, find it hard to build relationships, and do
better with a swimmer as a mentor.
Salmon’s five-stage model is pictured here (Salmon, 2000) and a chart of all
the learning models may be viewed on page 27.
Figure 1.
The
5-Stage Model
Maor (2003) designed a lesson whose
purpose was to implement a community of learners who would engage in
interactions and peer learning in order to produce reflective thinking. He set
up an Activity Room where discussions between students and the instructor could
take place. His results implied that
participants must become reflective practitioners in order to ensure quality
collaborative learning online.
The learning model Bird (2007) used
was the 3 ‘C’ model. It consisted of
Content, Construction and Consolidation.
In this model, Content represents the declarative knowledge of the
course, Construction refers to the students’ engagement that facilitates
knowledge construction, and Consolidation includes the reflective process that
enables learners to develop new understandings. Here is an adapted version of the 3 “C” Model
(Bird, 2007).
Figure 2.
The
3 “C” Model
Holmes and Gardner (2006) developed an e-learning “flower” with
the petals of search, select, explore, test, collaborate, analyze, create,
discuss, apply, understand, synthesize, and promote in order to compensate for
how today’s’ technology does not offer information in an ordered fashion
online. They felt that students need to
be able to deconstruct the information and
rebuild it as their own. By sharing
ideas with others who are working toward the same goal, ideas may be
articulated, rested and the information consolidated into a new form of
knowledge. Their Flower Petal Model is
shown below (Holmes and Gardner, 2006).
Figure 3.
The
Flower Petal Model
The most famous and accepted model
of online learning is that of the Community of Inquiry. Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000)
defined the Inquiry of Communication model (CoI), which makes the assumption
that students learn through the interaction of three core elements: cognitive
presence, social presence, and teaching presence. The Inquiry of Communication model is shown
below (Garrison et al., 2000).
Figure 4.
The
Community of Inquiry Model
In this model, Garrison et al. found that
cognitive presence, which is thought to be a major part of the critical
thinking process, was the most important of the three in higher education. They define social presence as “the ability
of participants in the Community of Inquiry to project their personal
characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other
participants as ‘real people’ “ (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000, p.
89). In addition, social presence
contains the elements of emotional expression, open communication and group
cohesion which will build understanding.
They felt that social presence was important due to the indirect affect
it has on the community of learners and the journey to their cognitive
goal. Teaching presence belongs to those
who design the educational experience and facilitates the journey of the
learners. They concluded that all three
presences must be included in a critical community of inquiry for educational
purposes. In today’s world, where the abundance
of information requires students to sift through large quantities of
information, it is especially important that students be part of a community in
order to interact in an educationally productive manner. When this is accomplished and combined with
an appropriate teaching presence, they believe it can lead to a high level of
cognitive presence which will lead to a higher level of thinking. How does this help students learn?
The educational theory that applies
here is that of constructivism. Holmes
and Gardner (2006) were able to put Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s (2000)
idea of social learning into the context of constructivism with the following
definition:
Socio-constructivism—the
need for assistance from a more knowledgeable other is the conceptual point at
which cognitive constructivist theory, in which the learners ‘construct’ their
own knowledge, skills or understanding from their own observational and
reasoning capabilities, evolves into the prevailing socio-constructivist
theories of today. In essence, the
socio-constructivist model requires a third dimension to the interaction
between the learners and their environment, that is, other people. These others may be learners or tutors
(Holmes & Gardner, 2006, pp 83-84).
So
the members of a social community will work together to construct the knowledge
they seek.
The Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000) CoI model has become a standard in the field and some have tested its ideas. Another definition of social presence is found in the research of Kehrwald (2008) who said, “Social presence is an individual’s ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions” (Kehrwald, 2008, p. 94). It is with social presence that students are able to inhabit the online environment and indicate both their existence and their willingness to interact with others. His research further indicated that participants view each other as real people; thus the acknowledgement that by participating online that it is another human you are interacting with and not a machine. Once this is established, the two participants may interact and develop a sense of connectedness, complete with varying levels of trust, respect, rapport and empathy. If they feel safe and comfortable they will be willing to put themselves at risk through participation in interpersonal exchanges. This seems to agree with and build on the Garrison et al. model.
According to Garrison and Vaugham (2005), the element of cognitive presence reflects the focus and success of the community of inquiry’s learning experience. Participants in their study felt that it was easier to stay connected with others when using the online environment. Since the sense of time was expanded when using the asynchronous online discussion area, it provided more opportunities for all to participate. When they compared their study to others they noticed that teaching presence and social presence were connected. They found that having a common or collaborative learning outcome may be essential. So the idea of presence types seems to exist, but there needed to be a way to test it.
Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, and Swan (2008) used a 34-item Community of Inquiry framework survey instrument during the summer of 2007 to test the validity of the CoI’s conceptual framework of Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences. The results showed the CoI instrument to be a valid measure of the three types of presence. A similar results was found by Arbaugh, Bangert and Cleveland-Innes (2010) who looked for significance regarding cognitive presence in different areas of classes. Their findings suggest that the CoI framework may have more significance when using it with classes from the applied disciplines (Engineering, Nursing, Education) rather than classes from the pure disciplines (Natural Sciences, Humanities, Mathematics). However, they also felt that social presence may not lend itself to the discipline-based differences as it depends more directly on the learners than do the other two presences.
Archibald (2010) also tested Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s Community of Inquiry Framework model by using undergraduate, graduate students and health professionals. He created the Research Design Learning Resource (RDLR) which contained a collection of Canadian experts sharing their educational research stories, an online repository of resources about research design, and a discussion forum. His findings were that approximately 69% of the variance in cognitive presence could be explained through the analysis of teaching and social presence. This was true even when other factors, such as self-directed learning readiness, prior online learning experience, and prior collaborative learning experience, were taken into account.
Not everyone has agreed with the CoI model. In the CoI model, it is felt that the learners themselves will decide what to focus on, working together to define their goals. A 2010 study by Vlachopoulos and Cowan revealed findings that did not agree with the mainstream of thought. They conducted tests in two universities, one English and one Scottish, using different types of blended sessions. The sessions were designed to be student-centered and implicitly student-directed with tutors and e-moderators trained to allow students to take responsibility over their own learning. Their results did not find that any negotiations were taking place between the tutors and learners as previous research has suggested (as cited in Anderson et al., 2001). Instead, the tutor involved had greater influence over the learning than predicted. These studies found that the e-moderators were deliberately trying to sway the discussions.
In a study by Kim, Kwon, and Cho (2011) instructors were trained to socially approach and interact with students during the classes using both one-way and two-way communications. Their research found that although interactivity of the learners was a predictor of social presence, it was not a predictor of learning satisfaction, as suggested by the CoI model.
When understanding the role of social presence, it is necessary to look at the areas of course design, facilitation, and how it influences higher-order learning. Members of a community need to understand what is expected of them in both the social and knowledge areas. Establishing and helping learners maintain a community is often seen as the role of the facilitator with what is known as teaching presence and is the role of the instructor (Walton & Hepworth, 2011).
The Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000) CoI model has become a standard in the field and some have tested its ideas. Another definition of social presence is found in the research of Kehrwald (2008) who said, “Social presence is an individual’s ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions” (Kehrwald, 2008, p. 94). It is with social presence that students are able to inhabit the online environment and indicate both their existence and their willingness to interact with others. His research further indicated that participants view each other as real people; thus the acknowledgement that by participating online that it is another human you are interacting with and not a machine. Once this is established, the two participants may interact and develop a sense of connectedness, complete with varying levels of trust, respect, rapport and empathy. If they feel safe and comfortable they will be willing to put themselves at risk through participation in interpersonal exchanges. This seems to agree with and build on the Garrison et al. model.
According to Garrison and Vaugham (2005), the element of cognitive presence reflects the focus and success of the community of inquiry’s learning experience. Participants in their study felt that it was easier to stay connected with others when using the online environment. Since the sense of time was expanded when using the asynchronous online discussion area, it provided more opportunities for all to participate. When they compared their study to others they noticed that teaching presence and social presence were connected. They found that having a common or collaborative learning outcome may be essential. So the idea of presence types seems to exist, but there needed to be a way to test it.
Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, and Swan (2008) used a 34-item Community of Inquiry framework survey instrument during the summer of 2007 to test the validity of the CoI’s conceptual framework of Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences. The results showed the CoI instrument to be a valid measure of the three types of presence. A similar results was found by Arbaugh, Bangert and Cleveland-Innes (2010) who looked for significance regarding cognitive presence in different areas of classes. Their findings suggest that the CoI framework may have more significance when using it with classes from the applied disciplines (Engineering, Nursing, Education) rather than classes from the pure disciplines (Natural Sciences, Humanities, Mathematics). However, they also felt that social presence may not lend itself to the discipline-based differences as it depends more directly on the learners than do the other two presences.
Archibald (2010) also tested Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s Community of Inquiry Framework model by using undergraduate, graduate students and health professionals. He created the Research Design Learning Resource (RDLR) which contained a collection of Canadian experts sharing their educational research stories, an online repository of resources about research design, and a discussion forum. His findings were that approximately 69% of the variance in cognitive presence could be explained through the analysis of teaching and social presence. This was true even when other factors, such as self-directed learning readiness, prior online learning experience, and prior collaborative learning experience, were taken into account.
Not everyone has agreed with the CoI model. In the CoI model, it is felt that the learners themselves will decide what to focus on, working together to define their goals. A 2010 study by Vlachopoulos and Cowan revealed findings that did not agree with the mainstream of thought. They conducted tests in two universities, one English and one Scottish, using different types of blended sessions. The sessions were designed to be student-centered and implicitly student-directed with tutors and e-moderators trained to allow students to take responsibility over their own learning. Their results did not find that any negotiations were taking place between the tutors and learners as previous research has suggested (as cited in Anderson et al., 2001). Instead, the tutor involved had greater influence over the learning than predicted. These studies found that the e-moderators were deliberately trying to sway the discussions.
In a study by Kim, Kwon, and Cho (2011) instructors were trained to socially approach and interact with students during the classes using both one-way and two-way communications. Their research found that although interactivity of the learners was a predictor of social presence, it was not a predictor of learning satisfaction, as suggested by the CoI model.
When understanding the role of social presence, it is necessary to look at the areas of course design, facilitation, and how it influences higher-order learning. Members of a community need to understand what is expected of them in both the social and knowledge areas. Establishing and helping learners maintain a community is often seen as the role of the facilitator with what is known as teaching presence and is the role of the instructor (Walton & Hepworth, 2011).
Role of the Instructor
The Community of Inquiry framework
is a useful tool that helps us understand the teaching, social and cognitive
presences. The study by Garrison,
Cleveland-Innes, and Fung (2010) emphasize the importance of teaching presence and its positive effect on the
other types of presence. But have other
studies backed this idea?
It has been found that in order to
help students process individuating characteristics they need for social
interaction with each other, instructors may be able to design interactions
that allow participants to establish social behaviors (Slagter van Tryon &
Bishop, 2009). Hull, and Saxon (2009)
examined the social interaction when controlling the instruction in two courses
held at the same time. The variations in
instruction were in the areas of negotiation of meaning and co-construction of
knowledge within these groups. There was
strong evidence to suggest that online learning groups were dependent on the facilitators to help students in asynchronous
courses construct knowledge. This was in
direct disagreement with a study by Powell, Tindal and Millwood (2008) which
did not find that the facilitator
shaped the direction of the course.
Salmon (2000) seems to take a middle road by stating that while students can interact with course materials and other
learners, they still have a need for an e-moderator.
Numerous studies found that students became frustrated when the lesson design did not include clear instructions, concise objectives and general participation guidelines (Kupczynski, Ice, Wiesenmayer, & McCluskey, 2010; Powell, Tindal & Millwood, 2008; Salmon, 2000). It was felt that when an instructor gives assignments it gives the students a shared mission that encourages them to stay on track and share more meaningful conversations (Dennen & Wieland, 2007). In addition, the studies by Dzakira (2008), Dennen, Darabi, and Smith, (2007) and Schutt, Allen, and Laumakis (2009) all examined student response to their online classes. These studies were interested in how the students perceive the classes. All three found that students need a solid social presence from their instructors. When comparing nineteen studies, Hiltz and Turoff (2002) found that whether or not students felt the online medium had resulted in better communication with their instructor than traditional methods, was one of the strongest influences of how students evaluated their courses. In opposition to this, the findings of Marzelli and Dicker (2006) found that what online students missed most was the interaction with their instructor. However, their article does not contain any statistics or methodology to verify this. So it seems clear that instructors need to be involved within the community of learners and ensure that the objectives are clearly stated.
Numerous studies found that students became frustrated when the lesson design did not include clear instructions, concise objectives and general participation guidelines (Kupczynski, Ice, Wiesenmayer, & McCluskey, 2010; Powell, Tindal & Millwood, 2008; Salmon, 2000). It was felt that when an instructor gives assignments it gives the students a shared mission that encourages them to stay on track and share more meaningful conversations (Dennen & Wieland, 2007). In addition, the studies by Dzakira (2008), Dennen, Darabi, and Smith, (2007) and Schutt, Allen, and Laumakis (2009) all examined student response to their online classes. These studies were interested in how the students perceive the classes. All three found that students need a solid social presence from their instructors. When comparing nineteen studies, Hiltz and Turoff (2002) found that whether or not students felt the online medium had resulted in better communication with their instructor than traditional methods, was one of the strongest influences of how students evaluated their courses. In opposition to this, the findings of Marzelli and Dicker (2006) found that what online students missed most was the interaction with their instructor. However, their article does not contain any statistics or methodology to verify this. So it seems clear that instructors need to be involved within the community of learners and ensure that the objectives are clearly stated.
Conclusion
Looking at the research that has
been done, it seems to be generally accepted that students learn best when they
perceive certain elements which are typically labeled as social, teaching and
cognitive presences. These three
elements are interconnected in ways that affect how well students can learn. In order for learning to take place in the
online environment, it is believed that learners do best when they can form a
community where they have a high level of trust and can share and explore
different ideas (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012; Garrison, Anderson
& Archer, 2000; and Holmes and Gardner, 2006). The presence of the teacher is felt to be
necessary in order to help students accept and fit into the community and be
guided to the overall goal. When these
two criteria are met, the community of learners can exchange ideas and learn
from each other. This constructivist
approach will allow the learners to progress to a higher level of cognitive
understanding of the information (McLeod, 2007).
There are still areas to explore. More needs to be known about the amount each of the presences truly plays in the real goal of learning. How much the CoI framework applies to different disciplines of studies has only begun to be examined along with the ideas of reference points and teacher immediacy. How is the construction of knowledge different for an individual as opposed to group learning? What changes in the software would help facilitate instruction and what if the instruction includes other forms of media? In looking at the literature, although some studies have been conducted using other cultures and comparing genders, almost every study has been performed at the college-age level so the results may not apply to younger students (Dzakiria, 2008). So the research continues and our knowledge of this area grows. However, for the research that has already been done, there are few resources for instructors to use. Teachers new to the area of online mode of delivery would benefit from having access to the information in a more coherent and easy-to-use fashion. Otherwise, all the information will remain unused by those whom it is supposed to benefit.
There are still areas to explore. More needs to be known about the amount each of the presences truly plays in the real goal of learning. How much the CoI framework applies to different disciplines of studies has only begun to be examined along with the ideas of reference points and teacher immediacy. How is the construction of knowledge different for an individual as opposed to group learning? What changes in the software would help facilitate instruction and what if the instruction includes other forms of media? In looking at the literature, although some studies have been conducted using other cultures and comparing genders, almost every study has been performed at the college-age level so the results may not apply to younger students (Dzakiria, 2008). So the research continues and our knowledge of this area grows. However, for the research that has already been done, there are few resources for instructors to use. Teachers new to the area of online mode of delivery would benefit from having access to the information in a more coherent and easy-to-use fashion. Otherwise, all the information will remain unused by those whom it is supposed to benefit.
Table
1
Learning
Models
Topic
|
Solomon’s 5 Stage
Model (Solomon, 2006)
|
Maor's Activity
Room (Maor, 2003)
|
Holmes and Gardner's
e-learning 'flower' model (Holmes
& Gardner, 2006)
|
Garrison, Anderson
& Archer (2000)
|
Bird's 3 'C'
model (Bird, 2007)
|
|||
Cognitive Presence
|
Triggering event
|
Criticalness- looking
at the underlying assumptions
|
Search and Explore for
information
|
Sense of puzzlement
|
||||
Exploration
|
reflect on own and
then others' ideas
|
Learners construct
knowledge
|
Information exchange
|
Students construct
their own cognitive structures
|
||||
Integration
|
Focused discourse
|
Analyse
|
Connecting ideas
|
|||||
Resolution
|
Reflective thinking
|
Test and apply ideas
|
Apply new ideas
|
Consolidation through
reflection
|
||||
Understanding
|
||||||||
Topic
|
Solomon
|
Maor
|
Holmes
|
Garrison
|
Bird
|
|||
Student Presence
|
Group cohesion
|
Individual access
|
Peer learning
|
Students share
knowledge
|
Continuing threads
|
Learner to learner
discussions
|
||
Create identity
|
Discussion leaders
|
Students see
themselves as producers
|
Quoting
|
Learners determine
content
|
||||
Find others to
interact with
|
Connection to
experiences
|
Select activities
|
Referring
|
Group problem-based
activities
|
||||
Discuss
|
Asking
|
|||||||
Complimenting
|
||||||||
Agreeing
|
||||||||
Open communica-tion
|
Students share
information
|
Collaborative learning
|
Collaborate
|
Vocatives
|
Students draw own
conclusion of dialogue
|
|||
Establish common
understand-ings
|
Analyze and Synthesize
to deconstruct and rebuild knowledge
|
Inclusion
|
Collaborative group assessment
|
|||||
Conferencing
|
Presentation to peers (externalize)
|
Salutations
|
||||||
Emotional expression
|
Achieve personal goals
|
Begins with teacher
introduction
|
Emoticons
|
|||||
Share outside of class
|
Social discussion
|
Using humor
|
||||||
Self disclosure
|
||||||||
Topic
|
Solomon
|
Maor
|
Holmes
|
Garrison
|
Bird
|
|||
Teacher Presence
|
Instructional design
|
Plan for peer-learning
through interaction
|
E-tutors create a
supportive environment for the diversity of learners
|
Set curriculum
|
Module analysis grid
|
|||
Activity room
|
Design methods
|
Module activity map
|
||||||
Provide easy access to
use website
|
Appropriate assessment
techniques such as portfolios
|
Set targets
|
Week-by-week work
program
|
|||||
Provide course
criteria
|
Online management
system
|
Standards
|
||||||
Technical help
|
Scaffolding
|
|||||||
Be flexible
|
||||||||
Facilitate course
(Build understand- ing)
|
Welcoming and
encouraging
|
Promote interactions
|
Define and initiate
discussion topics
|
Offers insights about
subject
|
||||
Support use of
materials
|
Evaluate peer
interactions
|
Identify shared
personal meaning
|
Reframes information
|
|||||
Topic
|
Solomon
|
Maor
|
Holmes
|
Garrison
|
Bird
|
|||
Teacher Presence
|
Familiarize and
provide bridges between cultural, social and learning environ-ments
|
Promote
student-centered approach to learning
|
Activity manager and administrator
|
Quality of process
|
Nurture involvement
and encourage contributions
|
|||
Facilitate tasks
|
Become a co-learner
|
|||||||
Facilitate process
|
Emphasize human social
interactions
|
|||||||
Stimulate discussion
|
Content facilitator
|
|||||||
Direct instruction
|
Provide feed back
|
Resource provider
|
Focus discussion
|
One on one dialogue
|
||||
Provide instruction
|
Questioning
|
Guided reading
|
||||||
Probing
|
direct feedback
|
|||||||
Ask questions
|
offer new knowledge
|
|||||||
Refer to outside
experts
|
offer technical
support
|
|||||||
REFERENCES
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., &
Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry
(coi) framework: An exploratory study. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1/2), 37-44.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.006
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M.,
Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P.
(2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the
community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet
& Higher Education, 11(3/4), 133-136. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Archibald, D. (2010). Fostering the
development of cognitive presence: Initial findings using the community of
inquiry survey instrument. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1/2), 73-74. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.001
Bird, L. (2007). The 3 'C' design
model for networked collaborative e-learning: A tool fornovice designers. Innovations
In Education & Teaching International, 44(2), 153-167.
Bulu, S. T. & Zahide, Y. (2008, January).
Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online teams. Educational
Technology & Society, 11(1), 132.
Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A., &
Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online courses: The
relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance
and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79. doi:10.1080/01587910701305319
Dennen, V., & Wieland, K.
(2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group
discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297. doi:10.1080/01587910701611328
Dzakiria, H. (2008). Students'
accounts of the need for continuous support in a distance learning programme. Open
Learning, 23(2), 103-111.
doi:10.1080/02680510802051913
Friend Wise, A., Padmanabhan, P.,
& Duffy, T. M. (2009). Connecting online learners with diverse local
practices: The design of effective common reference points for conversation. Distance
Education, 30(3), 317-338.
doi:10.1080/01587910903236320
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(2-3),
87-105. Retrieved from http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/bitstream/2149/739/1/critical_inquiry_in_a_text.pdf
Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J. B.
(2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and
future directions. Internet & Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1/2), 31-36
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1/2), 31-36
Hill, J. R.,
Song, L., & West, R. E. (2009). Social learning theory and web-based
learning environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. American
Journal of Distance Education, 23(2),
88-103. doi:10.1080/08923640902857713
Hiltz, S.R., Harasim, L., &
Turoff, M. (2007). Development and philosophy of the field of asynchronous
learning networks. In Haythornthwaite, C. A. & Andrews, R. (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of e-learning research.(pp. 55-69). London: SAGE.
Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M.
(2002). What makes learning networks effective?. Communications of the ACM,
45(4), 56-59.
Holmes, B., Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning:
Concepts and practice. London: SAGE Publications.
Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. S.
(2004). The bystander effect: A lens for understanding patterns of
participation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 165-195. Retrieved from http://hgseclass.harvard.edu/~kahleda/projectsite/readings/BystanderEffect.pdf
Hull, D. M., & Saxon, T. F.
(2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An
experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers &
Education, 52(3), 624-639. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.005
Jianfei, G., Tregonning, S., &
Keenan, L. (2008). Social interaction and participation: Formative evaluation
of online CME modules. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health
Professions, 28(3), 172-179.
doi:10.10020chp.174
Kabes,
S., Lamb, D., & Engstrom, J. (2010). Graduate learning communities:
transforming educators. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(5),
47.
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social
presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education,
29(1), 89-106. doi:10.1080/01587910802004860
Keller,
J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction
and distance education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning,
(78), 39.
Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D.
(2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning
outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512-1520.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005
Koh, J., Herring, S. C., & Hew,
K. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during
asynchronous online discussion. Internet & Higher Education, 13(4), 284-291. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.003
Kuhlmann, T. (2009). Are
your e-learning courses pushed or pulled?. Rapid E-Learning Blog, Retrieved
from
http://www.articulate.com/rapid-elearning/are-your-e-learning-courses-pushed-or-pulled/
Kupczynski, L., Ice, P.,
Wiesenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the
relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online Learning
Theories Knowledgebase (2012, July). Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 23-43.
McLeod,
S. A. (2007). Vygotsky. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Maor, D. (2003). The teacher's role
in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational
Media International, 40(1/2),
127.
Marzelli, S., & Dicker, L.
(2006). Overcoming facelessness in the online classroom. Distance Education
Report, 10(3), 4-7.
Miyake, N.(2007). Computer supported
collaborative learning. In Haythornthwaite, C. A., Andrews, R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research.
(pp. 248-262). London: SAGE.
Powell, S., Tindal, I., &
Millwood, R. (2008). Personalized learning and the Ultraversity experience. Interactive
Learning Environments, 16(1),
63-81. doi:10.1080/10494820701772710
Reynolds,
L., Bush, E., & Geist, R. (2008). The Gen y imperative. Communication
World, 25(3), 19-22, Retrieved from http://www.emerginghealthleaders.ca/resources/Reynolds-GenY.pdf
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating:
the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Schutt, M.,
Allen, B. S., & Laumakis, M. A. (2009). The effects of instructor immediacy
behaviors in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
10(2), 135-148.
Slagter van Tryon, P. J., &
Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social
connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education,
30(3), 291-315. doi:10.1080/01587910903236312
Smith,
M. K. (2002) 'Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and
andragogy', the encyclopedia of informal education, Retrieved from www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T.
J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley &
Sons.
Social Development Theory
(Vygotsky) at Learning-Theories.com.
Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html
courses.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning
communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education,
Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49. doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016
Tryon,
S. & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social
connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3),
291-315. doi:10.1080/01587910903236312
U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Technology-Based Distance
Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03
and 2004-05 (NCES 2008-008)
U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Condition of Education
2011 (NCES 2011-033)
Vaughan, N.,
& Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty
development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1-12.
Vlachopoulos, P., & Cowan, J.
(2010). Reconceptualising moderation in asynchronous online discussions using
grounded theory. Distance Education, 31(1),
23-36. doi:10.1080/01587911003724611
Walton, G., & Hepworth, M.
(2011). A longitudinal study of changes in learners' cognitive states during
and following an information literacy teaching intervention. Journal Of
Documentation, 67(3), 449-479. doi:10.1108/00220411111124541
