Teaching Presence in Online Discussions: Implications for Design
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This case study examines online discussions using Activity Theory to understand the contributions of individuals to the process of socially constructing knowledge within groups. The Community of Inquiry model integrates social, cognitive, and teaching presence within online discussions. While it is recognized that each participant can contribute to group learning, teaching presence on the part of students is rarely examined. How does teaching presence on the part of individuals contribute to the social construction of knowledge in online discussions? A total of 334 messages from 27 participants are coded for evidence of presence at the individual level and phases of construction of knowledge at the group level, allowing for multi-level comparative analyses. Data reveal that students do engage in teaching presence within online discussions, and that this is beneficial for the social construction of knowledge. This has implications for the design of online discussions and for instructor presence within discussions.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., 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 and Higher Education, 11(3), 133-136. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions.
Distance Education, 30(3). 339-361. 10.1080/01587910903236510
Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How
question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888-900. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00804.x
Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences:
A construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1-12. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002
Chadha, A. (2022). Pedagogical Interrelationships: The Transformed Landscape of Deliberations. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(2). 10.14434/josotl.v22i2.31626
Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition.
Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 1-46.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of
Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250-256. 10.1159/000278475
Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches, 9-11.
DeNoyelles, A., Zydney, J. M., & Chen, B. (2014). Strategies for creating a community of
inquiry through online asynchronous discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 153-165.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156. 10.1080/13639080020028747
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. M. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research,
representations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. l07-l32). Sage.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2012). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In M. G.
Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 104-119). Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
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). 10.1080/08923640109527071
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. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
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. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate
and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. 10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NR
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. 10.1080/08923649709526970
Gunawardena, C. N., & Anderson, T. (1998). Transcript analysis of computer-mediated
conferences as a tool for testing constructivist and social-constructivist learning theories. In Distance Learning'98. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning (14th, Madison, Wisconsin, August 5-7, 1998). 1998-00-00 (p. 139).
Hou, H. T. (2012). Analyzing the learning process of an online role-playing discussion activity.
Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 211-222.
Howell, G. S., LaCour, M. M., & McGlawn, P. A. (2017). Constructing student knowledge in the
online classroom: The effectiveness of focal prompts. College Student Journal, 51(4), 483-490.
Koh, J. H. L., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Project-based learning and student
knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 284-291. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.003
Krippendorff, K. (2011). Computing Krippendorff's alpha-reliability.
https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43
Lai, K. W. (2015). Knowledge construction in online learning communities: A case study of a
doctoral course. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 561-579. 10.1080/03075079.2013.831402
Leont’ev, A. N. (1979). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The
concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). ME Sharpe. Inc.
Lucas, M., Gunawardena, C., & Moreira, A. (2014). Assessing social construction of knowledge
online: A critique of the interaction analysis model. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 574-582. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.050
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.)
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and
practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220.
Penny, L., & Murphy, E. (2009). Rubrics for designing and evaluating online asynchronous
discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 804-820. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00895.x
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to
students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship. Pedagogy and Practice: Culture and identities, 58-74.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online
learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). IGI Global.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. T. (2010). Promoting spontaneous facilitation in online discussions:
Designing object and ground rules. Educational Media International, 47(3), 247-262. 10.1080/09523987.2010.518817
Wertsch, J. (1979). The concept of activity in soviet psychology. ME Sharpe. Inc.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. 10.1080/1361332052000341006