Upload
phil-ice
View
981
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This presentation illustrates how the CoI survey can be used to assess the efficacy of new technologies and instructional design strategies.
Citation preview
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.
Summer 2007 / mean = 4.44
Audio group / mean = 4.58
Teaching Presence
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 = 4.57
Social Presence
Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.
Summer 2007 / mean = 3.90
Audio group / mean = 4.27
Cognitive Presence
I felt motivated to explore content related questions.
Summer 2007 / mean = 4.31
Audio group / mean = 4.55
Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.
Summer 2007 / mean = 4.37
Audio group / mean = 4.49
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
Significant Difference – 30.5% increase
No Significant Difference
Significant Difference – 37.7% increase
No Significant Difference
Significant Difference – 35.6% increase
Significant Difference – 46.2% increase
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
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]