Teaching Presence and Student Success in Asynchronous Environments

1. Teaching Presence and Student Success in Asynchronous Environments Lori Kupczynski South Texas College Phil Ice University of North Carolina Charlotte Teresa Petty University of North Carolina Charlotte

2. Community of Inquiry • Three overlapping presence create the learning experience in online courses: teaching, social and cognitive presence (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001) • The model seeks to analyze and understand higher order thought processes in online learning environments

3. Teaching Presence • High levels of reported interaction with instructors have been found to result in higher levels of perceived learning (Shea, Fredrickson, Pickett & Pelz, 2003) • Student perceptions of learning are highly correlated with perceptions of high quality instructor interactions (Jian & Ting, 2000)

4. Teaching Presence • However, instructor interaction must also be a focus. • “The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the realization of personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001) • Three component construct

5. Instructional Design & Organization • setting curriculum • designing methods • establishing time parameters • utilizing the medium effectively

6. Facilitation of Discourse • identifying areas of agreement and disagreement • seeking to reach consensus and understanding • encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions • setting the climate for learning • drawing in participants and prompting discussion • assessing the efficacy of the process

7. Direct Instruction • presenting content and questions • focusing the discussion on specific issues • summarizing discussion • confirming understanding • diagnosing misperceptions • injecting knowledge from diverse sources • responding to technical concerns

8. Recent Developments • Though some debate remains, it appears that facilitation of discourse and direct instruction likely coalesce into directed facilitation (Arbaugh & Hwang, 2006; Shea, 2006; Shea, Swan, Li & Pickett, 2005)

9. Research Questions • How do components of teaching presence impact student performance? • Are there differences in the value placed on teaching presence components by different types of learners?

10. Student Demographics • n = 643 • Response rate = 41.3% • South Texas College = 362 • Certificate and AA students • 69.3% between 18 – 32 • 91.4% Hispanic

11. Student Demographics • West Virginia University = 281 • BA, MA and EdD students • 47.3% between 18 – 32 • 91.6% Caucasian

12. Common Survey Questions • Please describe one thing the instructor did that helped you to succeed in this class. • Please describe one thing the instructor did that hindered your success in this class. • What grade do you expect to receive in the course?

13. Analysis • Iterative, interpretive analysis of qualitative data • Themes drawn out and categorized using Teaching Presence items from the most recent Community of Inquiry Framework survey (Ice, Arbaugh, Diaz, Garrison, Richardson, Shea & Swan, 2007)

14. Analysis - Success • 96.7% of qualitative data could be placed within the CoI Teaching Presence Framework • The remainder consisted of incomplete or undecipherable responses

15. Analysis – Lack of Success • 95.9% of qualitative data could be placed within the CoI Teaching Presence Framework • The remainder consisted of incomplete or undecipherable responses

16. Analysis – Descriptive & Regression • Descriptive statistics were used to compare overall findings with institutional variations • Regression was used to determine if a significant relationship existed between categorized data and grades reported by students (Highlighting indicates significance, p > .05, in the following slides)

19. Conclusions and … …future research!

20. Commonalities • “The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses.” • The only Teaching presence item that was a significant predictor performance both in terms of success and lack of success. • Significant across institutional settings

21. Success • “The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn.” • Significant predictor for STC students • The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course. • Significant predictor for WVU students

22. Lack of Success - STC • “The instructor clearly communicated important course topics.” • “The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities.” • “The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking.” • Significant predictors for STC students

23. Lack of Success - WVU • No other significant predictors revealed

24. Comparisons • Significant differences exist between the two populations • STC students placed a higher value on directive instructor actions • WVU students placed a higher value on facilitation • Identification of areas of agreement and disagreement vs. exploration of new concepts

25. Instructional Design & Organization • Value recognized by students when elements are absent • Students may not view it as being synonymous with other acts of teaching presence • Reinforced by factor analyses in other research

26. Limitations • Only two populations were included in this study • The WVU sample came from one content area • Ethnicity and level are inexorably intertwined in this study

27. Future Research • Give students the option to elaborate on all factors responsible for perceived success and lack of success • More institutions / programs • Regress findings from current CoI on performance using HLM to account for ethnicity and type of institution

28. Presenter Contact Information • Lori Kupczynski, EdD loriski@panam.edu • Phil Ice, EdD pice@uncc.edu • Teresa Petty, EdD tmpetty@uncc.edu