Annand, D. (2011)
Social Presence within the Community of Inquiry Framework
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12,5,
Abstract
Evidence is presented that questions the actual extent of knowledge co-construction that occurs in most higher education settings and therefore challenges the COI framework’s underlying assumption of the need for sustained, contiguous, two-way communication in higher-level online learning environments.
The CoI framework has evolved from the description of a learning process within a social constructivist paradigm to an empirically testable construct in an objectivist paradigm.
Introduction
In its original formulation, the three presences were represented as overlapping and interacting processes that determined the quality of the online learning experience.
Rourke and Kanuka (2009) critiqued the CoI framework. They concluded that the CoI framework is deficient as a means to develop deep and meaningful learning, as a model for online learning, and as a program of research.
Akyol et al. (2009) responded to the issues raised by Rourke and Kanuka (2009) by first stating that the CoI framework is primarily a process model focused on the educational transaction within a constructivist orientation, rather than an outcomes-based measure within an objectivist orientation. Indeed, measuring deep and meaningful learning as an outcome “does little to inform the teaching and learning process” (p. 131).
The purpose of this article is to raise additional concerns about the CoI framework and to support the position of Rourke and Kanuka, who argue that the framework, as it is popularly conceptualized, does not adequately inform the development of online education theory and practice. In particular, the influence of social presence on the learning experience within online higher education appears to be overstated.
The Question of Social Presence
The concept - Without group-based interaction, learners cannot create the common values, goals, and language necessary for effective learning to occur. The many-to-many types of interactions this connotes are operationalized primarily within the concept of social presence.
A progressive schema was proposed to illustrate social presence: initially, identification with the community, then purposeful communication within a trusting environment, and finally development of social relationships.
Shea and Bidjerano (2009b) noted that asynchronous group-based communications per se are insufficient to develop an effective community of inquiry, and this was the main point of Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005). However, the unexamined question is whether social presence and sustained, continuous, two-way communication (an integral component of it) is necessary at all to facilitate the development of higher-order cognitive presences and thence deep and meaningful learning. –
KRO the question here I suppose is when/how does peer-peer interaction benefit learning? ; DL would argue that it triggers reflection and adaptation on the part of the individual learner -provided that the learning design incorporates a requirement for the development of a shared artifact. Does the artifact externalize the learning? My argument is an additional one. That the student experience while learning includes an ongoing emotional component that influences the motivation to engage with the learning task and with peers during collaborative learning tasks and that emotional memory may well influence subsequent choices whether related to learning, work or other personal issues.
Careful reading of CoI-based research seems to indicate that students do not attach much value to the group-based influences of social presence. A few studies have found social presence to be beneficially linked to some aspects of higher education learning experiences. For instance, Boston et al. (2009) analyzed results of a survey administered to almost 29,000 undergraduate students enrolled in the American Public University System. They found that a small number of social presence indicators could significantly predict reenrollment patterns. But for the most part, support for the construct of social presence is limited at best.
Nagel and Kotze (2010) surveyed students in two courses. The amount of one-on-one time the instructor could provide was limited. However, the researchers still reported positive social, cognitive, and teaching effects, higher completion rates, and higher-category cognitive presences (such as integration and resolution). But the main technique that produced the observed effects was the one-on-one peer review, not group-based interaction.
Shea et al. (2010) used a quantitative content analysis of approximately 1,000 online interactions across two identical undergraduate business courses taught by different instructors to measure the extent of the three presences and their interactions. They concluded that their findings indicate a possible lack of correlation between social presence and learning, noting that,
…several specific indicators of social presence are very difficult to interpret reliably. All of these issues indicate that the social presence construct is somewhat problematic and requires further articulation and clarification if it is to be of use to future researchers seeking to inform our understanding of online teaching and learning. (p. 17)
Ke (2010) conducted interviews, transcript analyses, and surveys with 16 adult learners. The purpose was to study the nature of and relationships among cognitive, social, and teaching presences reported by students and instructors. Adult learners preferred individual assignments and timely, encouraging, individualized feedback from instructors. Most respondents reported instances of deep learning but listed written assignments and direct instruction as the techniques that contributed most to these experiences. Students perceived online collaborative learning to be a “bonus” that was overemphasized. They considered it more useful for social purposes; also, it contributed to their learning by clarifying their own thoughts through the posting process rather than by enabling socially constructed learning. Motivations to participate were generally reported to be superficial and grade-driven.
KRO ? Highlights the need for students in HE to understand the learning process and also graduate competencies.
Shea and Bidjerano (2009a) found that the “vast majority” of students achieved higher-level cognitive presences (integration and resolution) but that this seemed to be the result of activities other than online discussion forums. They surmised that online discussions “initiated” thought rather than completed the cognition process, but they also noted that collaborations consisted not so much of knowledge construction related to course content but of more administrative activity focused on the completion of group assignments.
Gorsky, Caspi, and Smidt (2007) found that students tended to rely significantly on instructional material to learn, supplemented by limited but crucial dialogue with instructors—In a difficult course, Gorsky et al. argued, students are unable to help each other since most experience similar cognitive difficulties. In an easy course, interpersonal dialogue is perceived by learners to be unnecessary. . Gorsky et al. thus argued that the importance of interpersonal dialogue is overrated in practice and is context-dependent and that social learning theories generally tend to overstate the importance of group-based interaction in the learning process.
Shea and Bidjerano (2008) found that social presence does not predict learner satisfaction
KRO can do something with this based on the survey
and stated that prior research on factors similar to those measured by the CoI framework’s concept of social presence did not contribute to self-perceived or actual learning. These did positively correlate with perceptions of group interaction and instructor effectiveness, but the links from these intermediating variables to actual learning were not established.
Akyol and Garrison (2008) studied the progression of constituent parts of the three CoI presences over time in a group of 16 graduate students by coding about 500 discussion forum messages. Their study did not find any correlation between social presence and learning and reported that “only two presences (teaching and cognitive presence) showed a significant relationship with perceived learning and satisfaction” (p. 15).
Analysis of the CoI framework was significantly enhanced by the development of the practical inquiry model (PIM), a unified instrument with approximately 34 to 37 items that surveys students’ perceptions of their online learning experiences. The instrument was validated and refined in several studies (e.g., Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006; Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes, 2010; Arbaugh et al., 2008; Swan et al., 2008, Shea & Bidjerano, 2009a).
Diaz et al. (2010) administered the PIM survey to 413 graduate and undergraduate student volunteers at four US universities and colleges to determine learners’ perceptions of the three CoI presences, their interactions, and the relative importance of each PIM survey item. Items rated as relatively low in presence but high in importance indicated areas where students’ expectations and needs were not well met. In this study, social presence factors were rated as least important.
The PIM and its survey instrument also enabled more rigorous analysis of the relative effects of the three CoI presences. Shea and Bidjerano (2008) developed a structural equation model of self-perceived cognitive presence based on responses to a PIM survey from over 5,000 learners in dozens of US higher learning institutions that used a common learning management system and pedagogy. Their research made explicit the evolution of the CoI framework from one in which the three presences influence and interact to create the online learning experience (see Figure 1 above) to one in which teaching and social presences are hypothesized to causally affect cognitive presence, now considered the final measure of the online learning experience. Teaching presence is also considered to indirectly affect cognitive presence through its effect on social presence. These concepts are shown in Figure 2 below.
Results from structural equation modeling seem to corroborate that social presence has a relatively unimportant effect on the online learning experience.
Shea and Bidjerano (2009a) reported that students who experienced low social presence but high teaching presence still reported high cognitive presence and vice versa.
KRO Check the link between social presence indicators and the SP survey items
Shea and Bidjerano (2009b) found that three subcategories mostly identified with teaching presence explained about 67% of observed variance. Social presence factors predicted very little additional variance. Shea and Bidjerano also reported that appropriate course design reduced ambiguity and that this in turn appeared to make social presence factors less important.
Structural equation modeling conducted by Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Fung (2010) also raised interesting unanswered questions about the importance of social presence. Their data indicated that teaching presence predicted 51% of the observed cognitive presence effect, and social presence predicted 40% of the observed cognitive presence effect. However, teaching presence predicted 52% of the observed social presence effect. Taken together, the results suggest that teaching and social presences are highly correlated (see also Bangert, 2009). As a result, social presence may be either substantially produced by elements such as teaching presence, or it is an artifact of cognitive presence.
KRO Based on the pilot. Are comparisons between the tutors in the way they did, or did not, encourage social presence worth investigating. This will involve being more specific as to how tutors encourage social presence.
Shea and Bidjerano (2010) found that combined social and teaching presences predicted only a little better than 25% of cognitive presence. They proposed a fourth construct which they called “learner presence,” characterized as a combination of self-efficacy and individual effort. The combination of learning, teaching, and social presences predicted better than 75% of perceived cognitive presence in both blended and online learning environments. They proposed a revised version of the CoI framework that incorporated the effects of individual learner attributes on learning, as shown in the figure below.
Though informative, these three studies do not address the extent to which social presence affects cognitive presence without the mediating effect of teaching presence or, conversely, the extent to which teaching presence alone affects cognitive presence, either directly or through its mediating effect on social presence. For instance, Shea and Bidjerano (2009b) indicated that the standardized total effects path coefficient of teaching presence to cognitive presence is 0.72 (Table 2, p. 549). Garrison et al. (2010) obtained similar coefficients for teaching and social presence path effects (see Figure 1, p. 34). Depending on the correlation between teaching and social presences, teaching presence R2 could be as high as approximately 0.50. In other words, non-collaborative teaching functions may significantly cause observed cognitive presence effects, whereas social presence effects other than those produced by teaching presence may be minimal. To illuminate these issues, additional calculations should be performed on the data sets and published.
The results of Shea and Bidjerano’s research (2010) reported above and the proposed construct of learner presence also indicate that teaching activities focused on individual intellectual development have significant effects on cognition. This is similar to results reported by Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2009). Means et al. conducted a metaanalysis of approximately 100 studies published between 1996 and 2008 comparing online, blended, and classroom learning outcomes, primarily in higher education. The most successful online metacognitive learning strategies they observed all involved encouraging individual efforts in self-reflection, -explanation, and -monitoring.
The recurring suggestion of recent CoI-based empirical research is that social presence is of questionable value in the online higher education learning experience because it does not appear to have an important effect on cognitive presence. Rather, appropriately structured learning materials, timely, non-contiguous, one-on-one instructor–learner communication, and a teaching focus that enhances individual learner attributes and effort may be the best prescriptions for effective online learning in higher education. Limited group-based collaboration may be able to uniquely develop certain interpersonal skills, like the ability to interact with multiple learners and manage group dynamics, but it may not be necessary to synthesize knowledge or achieve other valued higher-order learning outcomes. Further, CoI-based research to date has neither incorporated nor sufficiently studied unstructured, student-initiated effects on social presence—for instance, the extent of one-on-one mutual support, instruction, and encouragement students provide to one another outside of formal class structures (Gorsky et al., 2007).
KRO but the careers paper did just that
.Arbaugh, Bangert, and Cleveland-Innes (2010) – the application of the CoI framework might be better suited to “soft” disciplines rather than “hard” ones, particularly at advanced levels. In hard disciplines, theory is well established and accepted, more emphasis is placed on knowledge acquisition, and teaching is more directed than facilitative. In soft disciplines, theory tends to be contested or less developed. Consequently, teaching in soft disciplines is more constructivist-oriented and iterative, with emphasis placed on reflective practice and the development of transferrable skills, and higher-level cognitive presences are achieved. However, this is an artificial distinction. Disciplines relying on well-established and empirically supported theory may require less resolution activity, for instance, since outcomes are robustly predicted. But this would not limit the development of critical thinking skills in hard disciplines. There is little evidence that these cannot be developed within any appropriately structured course. Rather, it may be that the conceptualization of higher-order subcategories of cognitive presence within the CoI framework (such as integration and resolution) is too restricted because it associates only these attributes with critical thinking and ignores other valid constructs.
Akyol et al. (2009) stated that “seminal CoI work does not exclude the consideration of intended learning outcomes” (p. 124). Indeed, objectivist-based distance learning theory suggests that higher-order cognition may be achievable through wide and varied combinations of learner–teacher, learner–content, and learner–learner interaction (Moore, 1989). Now that CoI-based research has moved into the realm of empiricism, controlled studies can and should be undertaken that compare learning outcomes resulting from sustained, contiguous, two-way communication to other learning models. Research should also more closely examine informal learning effects on cognition and whether more effective learning occurs in formal settings of sustained, contiguous, two-way communication compared to cohort-based learning environments where limited, formal learner–learner interactions are incorporated, and even individualized distance learning environments where formal learner–learner interactions may be significantly curtailed. To facilitate this, subcategories of social and teaching presences as currently classified in the CoI framework need to be revamped and analysis adjusted to separate those processes that support explicitly group-based activities versus individual learning activities. This would isolate social presence effects produced by sustained, contiguous, two-way interaction from those produced by, for instance, informal one-on-one student interactions and more appropriately determine the extent and types of social and teaching presences necessary to support deep and meaningful learning in online higher education.
References
Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). A response to the review of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 123–136.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(2–3), 3–22.
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83.
Arbaugh, J., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 37–44.
Arbaugh, J., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.
Bangert, A. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 104–111.
Boston, W., Diaz, S., Gibson, A., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67–83.
Daniel, J., & Marquis, C. (1979). Interaction and independence: Getting the mixture right. Teaching at a Distance, 14, 29–44.
Diaz, R., Swan, K., Ice. P., & Kupczynksi, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 22–30.
Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2/333.
Garrison, D. R. (2009a). Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. The Journal of Distance Education, 23(2). Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/471/889.
Garrison, D. R. (2009b). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
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.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.
Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. G. (1990). Tilting at windmills? Destroying mythology in distance education. International Council for Distance Education Bulletin 24, 42–46.
Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–27.
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Smidt, S. (2007). Use of instructional dialogue by university students in a difficult distance education physics course. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 1–22.
Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.
Ice, P. (2010). The future of learning technologies. In D. R. Garrison, & M. Cleveland-Innes, (Eds.), An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era (pp. 137–164). New York: Routledge.
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808–820.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2007). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 75–86.
Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Weisenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 23–43.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London: Routledge.
Nagel, L., & Kotze, T. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 45–51.
Peters, O. (1983). Distance teaching and industrial production: A comparative interpretation in outline. In D. Seward, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 95–113). New York: Routledge.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009a). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 199–217.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009b). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52, 543–553.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan, P. (2010). A reexamination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10–21.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. M. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175−190.
Swan, K. (2010). Post-industrial distance education. In R. Garrison & M. Cleveland-Innes (Eds.), An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era (pp. 108–134). New York: Routledge.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2, 1–12.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Press.
