Phil Ice, Ed.D.

SALT, Washington Interactive Technologies Conference2009

Factors Influencin

g Instructor Success

in Online

Courses

What Factors Influence

Instructor Success in Online Courses?

Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Measure Successproposed in 2000 by Garrison, Anderson

and Archer

a 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

now the most frequently cited process model in the literature (over 350 citations – Google Scholar)

Commonly Accepted Factors

Courses Previously TaughtInstitutional TrainingTechnical Support

Pedagogical Guidance Origin of Degree

Degree Level

Study 1

West Virginia University

Impact of Pedagogical Training and Technical Support (n = 18 instructor and 512 students)

Training and Support hours regressed on Teaching Presence Subscales of Facilitation of Discourse and Direct Instruction

Number of courses previously taught was treated as a co-variable

Study 1

The equation was significant - HOWEVER

Pedagogical Guidance accounted for 2.1% of variance

Technical Support accounted for 1.9% of variance

Previous online teaching experience was not a significant predictor – in fact some of the highest scores came from first time instructors

Ice, 2007

Study 2

American Public University System

Modality for last degree earned – online vs. face to face

Degree Level

Co-variables – age, gender, courses previously taught, completion of additional pedagogical training

Regressed on Teaching Presence, Social Presence and Cognitive Presence and Facilitation of Discourse and Direct Instruction Subscales (n = 94 instructors and 4219 students)

Study 2

The equation was significant, HOWEVER

Gender was the only significant predictor

Being female accounted for 4% of the variance in Teaching Presence, Cognitive Presence and Facilitation of Discourse subscale

Patrizi and Ice, 2009

So, what does matter?

Research shows that commonly accepted factors have no impact.

Is it all a matter of one’s outlook toward learning?

Social Basis of Learning

Theory and research suggest that collaborative learning is the most effective means of facilitating learning in online environments.

Based on Vygotsky’s concept of social mediated practice

Collaborative learning posits that individuals construct knowledge through dialogue, group discussion and peer modification.

The success of collaborative learning is dependent upon the ability of group members to assist peers in diagnosing and modifying misconceptions.

Epistemology - ConstructivismProponents of constructivism argue that

knowledge is created through a process of inquiry and discovery in which external stimuli are interpreted in a unique manner by each learner.

A multitude of realities situated within each learner.

Dependent upon learners ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information.

Creation of meaningful, personalized knowledge.

Epistemology - Objectivism

Learning is a sequential process in which individual units of declarative knowledge are assembled into larger declarative, procedural and conditional constructs to define reality.

Learners display an understanding of a single reality through declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge.

Premised on the instructor having complete control over the materials, pace and direction of learning.

Not dependent on how individuals internalize or interpret such information

Social Dimension

Individual Group

Epistemological Dimension Objectivist Single objective reality. Single objective reality

Knowledge is transmitted. Knowledge is transmitted.

Abstract instruction out of context.Instructional sequences combined with group activities.

Emphasis on instructional sequences.Working with peers reinforces learning and conceptualizes concepts.

Individual mastery of material. Emphasis on learner - instructor and learner - learner interactions.

Emphasis on learner - instructor interaction.

Constructivist Multiple realities. Multiple realities.

Knowledge is created individually. Knowledge is created.

Engagement with the subject matter.Collaborative construction of knowledge by interacting with peers.

Authentic tasks in meaningful contexts. Authentic / meaningful group interactions.

Emphasis on learner - content interaction.

Emphasis on learner - content and learner - learner interactions.

Methodology

An exploratory sequential design with data transformation was implemented. Priority was given to the transformed qualitative components.

11 instructors interviewed – probing for understanding of technology.

Syllabi and learning activities placed within socio-epistemological framework.

Ethnographic reporting from instructional designers.

Analysis

Triangulation of data with correlation emphasized.

Iterative, interpretive process to assess faculty understanding of application of technology.

Qualitative data used to support relationshiops from analysis of transformed data – understanding of technology & relationships to socio-epistemological orientations

Establishment of grounded theory was an objective.

Later confirmatory samplings.

Socio-epistemological classification of course activities by instructor.

Total Activities

Objectivist - Individual

Objectivist - Group

Constructivist - Individual

Constructivist - Group

Kathy 16 3 (18.75%) 2 (12.50%) 5 (31.25%) 6 (37.50%)

Martin 26 2 (7.69%) 4 (15.39%) 10 (38.46%) 10 (38.46%)

Larry 64 18 (28.13%) 12 (18.75%) 12 (18.75%) 22 (34.37%)

Nancy 32 12 (37.50%) 8 (25.00%) 2 (6.25%) 10 (31.25%)

David 44 20(45.45%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (4.55%) 22 (50.00%)

*Sharon 30 24 (80.00%) 2 (6.67%) 4 (13.33%) 0 (0.00%)

*Stan 20 18 (90.00%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (10.00%) 0 (0.00%)

*Linda 84 60 (71.43%) 6 (7.14%) 12 (14.29%) 6 (7.14%)

*Monica 60 38 (63.33%) 10 (16.67%) 6 (10.00% 6 (10.00%)

Jill 18 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 12 (66.67%) 6 (33.33%)

Rich 62 32 (51.61%) 4 (6.45%) 8 (12.90%) 18 (29.04%)

Activity type means for subgroup B versus all other instructors.

Objectivist - Individual

Objectivist - Group

Constructivist - Individual

Constructivist - Group

Subgroup B76.19%

(SD=11.45)7.62%

(SD=6.85)11.91%

(SD=2.23)4.28%

(SD=5.08)

All Others27.02%

(SD=19.27)11.15%

(SD=9.49)25.55%

(SD=22.02)36.28%

(SD=6.88)

Interview Data

Four instructors (Sharon, Stan, Linda & Monica) did not differentiate between technologies and pedagogical applications of technologies.

Viewed technological tools as a replacement for pedagogy in online courses.

Believed various technologies would dictate how learning activities are structured.

Believed technologies had singular uses.

Beliefs not altered by significant training and support.

Perception not detected among other faculty.

Relationships

Of all course activities, an average of 88.10% of those developed by the 4 instructor subgroup were individual. In contrast, the means for all other instructors were relatively balanced between individual (52.57%) and collaborative (47.43%) activities.

With respect to Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich’s (2006) Teaching Approaches Framework, an average of 76.19% of subgroup B’s activities were classified as objectivist-individual as compared to a mean of 27.02% for all other instructors.

Constructivist – Group oriented instructors had statistically significant higher scores across all TP, SP, CP and all subscales

Implications

Socio-epistemological orientations may impact instructors’ ability to construct and facilitate effective online learning experiences.

The potential to screen potential instructors on the basis of socio-epistemological orientations may be of benefit to administrators.

Training and support structures may be needed to address paradigmatic orientations of faculty.

More research is needed to validate this study and the hypotheses developed.

• Director of Course Design, Research & Development

• American Public University System• pice@apus.edu

Thank You!Phil Ice, Ed.D.Director of Course Design, Research & DevelopmentAmerican Public University Systempice@apus.edu