USG Course Two: Improving Student Engagement & Cultivating an Online Learning Community - Community of Inquiry in Online Discussions

USG Course Two: Improving Student Engagement & Cultivating an Online Learning Community

Developing a Community of Inquiry in
Online Discussions

By: Beth René Roepnack, Ph. D.
USG eCampus

Evolution of Online Interactions TO Organic Discussions

Many early adopters began teaching online in the mid to late 1990s. Early classes used IRC dial-up chat, which meant that faculty and students chatted over the telephone lines in teaching sessions that were hosted once or twice a week. In these chat sessions, faculty could share information, tell teaching stories about the topics, and provoke discussion by asking provocative questions. Students discussed the material, asked and answered questions, and shared their ideas. Many faculty (then and now) were reluctant to teach online classes because they didn’t think that a sterile online environment could capture the magical experience of students learning. However, for many faculty, these chat sessions were exciting and seemed similar to a face-to-face classroom as far as learning and engagement.

Then, online learning moved into learning management systems (early Blackboard and WebCT), and asynchronous discussions replaced the synchronous chat sessions. Asynchronous discussions allowed even more flexibility for online learners and instructors because they no longer needed to be at a computer at a particular time (this was well before mobile devices could be used). While early discussions could replicate chat sessions by asking questions and having students respond (asynchronously), soon faculty were required to use the now familiar post-and-reply-to-two homework style discussion format in order to meet the concerns of administrators. Even when faculty posted complex and provocative questions, the discussions seemed to fall flat in this new format. Faculty and students soon began to dread these discussions because there was no longer any excitement in the learning process and the focus seemed to be on assessing whether or not students had read and understood the assigned chapters instead of engaging students in the learning process. How can we regain the excitement of learning through conversation?

In this module on discussions, the purpose of online discussions in general, and the advantages of organic discussions in particular, are reviewed. Also shared are specific instructions on how organic discussions can be implemented in your course to revitalize your online discussions, paying special attention to implementing the structure and developing the questions for engaging and meaningful discussions.

Online discussions can be restructured to make them similar to organic classroom discussions by having the instructor start the threads (pinning them to the top of the discussion) and having students reply to each other, thus simulating face-to-face classroom discussions and early chat sessions. Faculty join the discussions by responding to groups of students and asking scaffolding questions to help direct the conversations to more fruitful areas or to encourage students to deepen or broaden the conversation, thus allowing late-comers to a conversation to add new information. These organic discussions can be engaging for faculty and students and provide learning opportunities in which students use critical thinking skills as they engage with each other, deepening their understanding and constructing knowledge using the shared readings as a starting point. They also better support the development of a Community of Inquiry because of their more interactive nature.

Community of Inquiry

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, in their original Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework research (2000) and in the research that has followed (Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010; Akyol, et al., 2009; Lambert & Fisher, 2013, to name just a few) have shown that higher-order learning requires students and teachers to be socially and cognitively present, and for teachers to also express their teaching presence. The CoI framework is a “collaborative and socio-constructivist approach to online education” which “emphasizes creating an effective learning environment where students feel a connection with other learners and the instructor and engage in well-designed collaborative learning activities” (Tolu, 2012, p. 1049). When students are comfortable with each other and the professor, they can construct knowledge together, resolve misunderstandings, and learn the material more easily. They build community on shared intellectual and social interactions (Lambert & Fisher, 2013). The CoI framework is a process model that provides the theoretical framework for assessing the contributions of teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence on student learning and engagement.

Cognitive Presence

Most of us are quite familiar with the responsibilities of cognitive presence in a traditional course. We know that, as instructors, we need to provide learning activities that provide students with the opportunity to practice their higher-order thinking skills, share knowledge, and guide students on how to process information. However, we might not always intuit how to do that in the online discussions. In the online discussion, establishing our cognitive presence involves asking questions that help students examine their assumptions or perspectives or that require them to clarify their evidence or foundational arguments. This sometimes requires a longer post or response to students as we take advantage of a "teaching moment" to share information, make significant distinctions that some of the students seem to have missed, and ask scaffolding questions (more on these questions, below). We need to keep in mind that we need to help students through all stages of the learning process: approaching problems strategically, seeking out new knowledge, gaining new levels of understanding, and sharing that understanding with others (Lambert & Fisher, 2013). Helping them through these stages will help instill in them a critical thinking disposition (Kalelioğlu & Gülbahar, 2014).

Social Presence

Social Presence has been defined as, “the ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2011, p. 34). Put simply, it is allowing the personalities of people to shine through the digital online environment so that individuals perceive each other as real people.

There are a variety of ways that instructors can support social presence in an online discussion, such as using a positive affective tone, expressing their authentic individuality, creating a safe learning environment, supporting open communication, and promoting social and intellectual collaboration. Sharing your passion for the topic using teaching stories in the online discussion can be an effective way to share your individuality while opening the door for students to share similar examples. Research shows that the degree of social presence in a course positively correlates with successful learning outcomes and learner satisfaction with online learning (Lambert & Fisher, 2013). Garrison & Arbaugh (2007) state that “Social presence lays the groundwork for higher-level discourse; and the structure, organization, and leadership associated with teaching presence creates the environment where cognitive presence can be developed” (p. 163). When students feel comfortable with each other, the learning environment, and their instructor, they can learn.

Teaching Presence and Immediacy

We express much of our teaching presence in the way that we design a course to support the learning objectives, in the questions we ask in the discussions, and in our descriptions of the assignments we require to be completed. We also express our teaching presence in the general management of the course. That is, how fair we are in our dealings with students and how we engage with students and share knowledge with them (Lambert & Fisher, 2013). Some forms of teaching presence are more effective than others. For example, when we provide explicit instructions for assignments, are clear on our grading (see the TILT section later in this module), and practice engagement techniques that provide a sense of immediacy or psychological closeness, students perceive a sense of community and like the professor more. Instructors communicate immediacy through verbal and nonverbal cues (Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986). In the online environment, instructors establish immediacy by having a warm tone, using emoticons and images to break up the heavy text environment, and by providing short turnaround times to emails, discussions posts, and grading (Dixson, Greenwell, Rogers-Stacy, Weister, & Lauer, 2017).

How can we support critical thinking and develop a Community of Inquiry? Continue with Module 2 readings to find out.

References

Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C. & Swan, K. (2009). A Response to the Review of the Community of Inquiry Framework. The Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l'ducation Distance. 23 (2), pp. 123-135. Athabasca University Press.

Alzahrani, M.G. (2017). The effect of using online discussion forums on students' learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 164-176.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73-84.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987, March). Seven Principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-6. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf

Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J.B., (2007). Researching the Community of Inquiry framework: Review, issues and future directions. The Internet and High Education, 10(3).

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.

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T.M. (2001, March/April). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 at http://technologysource.org/article/seven_principles_of_effective_teaching/

Hall, B. M. (2015, April 8). Designing for discussion-based teaching. OLC’s eLearning Landscape. Retrieved on April 10, 2015 at http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/designing-discussion-based-teaching/

Hall, R. (2015, Spring). Critical thinking in online discussion boards: Transforming an anomaly. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(3), 21-27.

Jones, R. C. (2018, September 4). Why demand originality from students in online discussion forums? Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com

Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking and critical thinking dispositions in online discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1) 248-258.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, J. L. (2013). Community of Inquiry Framework: Establishing Community in an Online Course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1-16.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved on April 16, 2015 at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02505024

Reber, J. (2011). The under-examined life: A proposal for critically evaluating teachers' and students' philosophies of teaching. College Teaching, 59(3), 102-110.

Schell, G., & Janicki, T. J. (2013). Online Course Pedagogy and the Constructivist Learning Model. Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, 1(1): 26-37..

Shukor, N. A, Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). Exploring Students’ Knowledge Construction Strategies in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Discussions Using Sequential Analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (4), 216–228.

Tolu, A.T. (2013). Creating effective communities of inquiry in online courses. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1049 – 1055.

Page updated

Report abuse