Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence. Indiana University Bloomington

Transcription

1 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence Indiana University Bloomington

2 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 1 Introduction In an online interview conducted in January of 2013 by MBAChannel ( Dave Wilson, the president and C.E.O. of the Graduate Management Admissions Council (GMAC), was asked about the shift to online education at business schools across the United States. Dave shared that roughly 14% of this year s applicants will consider online programs. The convenience, flexibility, and efficiency of online learning are all key factors likely to continue to push this percentage higher in subsequent years. However, he cautioned online program applicants to ensure the program has the same caliber of faculty as the school s flagship in-residence offering. Obviously Dave sees faculty as one of several critical success factors in the quality of an MBA s education. Over time, he warns, the market will begin to discern differences between the teaching quality of a school s online and traditional program, and quickly devalue the lesser program. The use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and computer conferencing in supporting the educational experience began just before the turn of the 21 st century, and far outpaced the scholar community s understanding of how best to leverage these tools to promote higher-order learning (Garrison et. al., 2001). Scholars responded by quickly launching projects geared towards providing conceptual models for measuring teaching quality in what would later be formalized as online instruction. One such model, the Community of Inquiry (CoI), articulated by Garrison et al., (1999) has generated considerable research interest from the scholarly community. With nearly 2,000 academic citations since publication, the CoI remains a seminal referent for exploring the promise of online instruction, and measuring its ability to delivery teaching quality capable of promoting student learning. CoI describes three categories of critical inquiry in text-based learning environments, conceived through detailed reviews of transcripts of prior online instruction examples. The most

3 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 2 basic of the three elements, yet the least researched is cognitive presence (Dewey, 1931), and represents the ability of students within the community of inquiry to construct meaning through sustained communication. The second element of the model, and conversely the most heavily researched, is social presence (Garrison, 1997). Social presence is defined as the ability for participants to build and sustain their personal identity or personality characteristics into the community. This allows participants to present themselves as individual realities, and not faceless contributors. The final element of the model, teaching presence, consists of the design and organization, facilitation, and direct instruction functions of the educational experience. As Garrison et. al. point out, facilitation is not solely the responsibility of the instructor, however, and may in fact be shared among the teacher and some or all of the students in the learning environment. The intention of this literature review is to examine our current understanding of teaching presence, as conceptualized in the CoI. The review focusses on synthesizing our current understanding of the construct, its application in educational settings, and suggests areas for productive future research efforts. The theoretical foundations of teaching presence Perhaps the most influential of all theories to date in evaluating the effectiveness of online instruction comes to us from the work of Garrison et al. (2000), in the form of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework (see Figure 1). The framework, built upon the earlier work of Lipman (1991), describes three categories of critical inquiry in text-based learning environments, conceived through detailed reviews of transcripts of prior online instruction examples.

4 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 3 Social presence is the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities (Garrison, 2010). This allows participants to present themselves as individual realities, and not faceless contributors. Liu et al., (2007) found that close relationships exist between the sense of a learning community and perceived learning of the individual, yet most online instructors are not community building minded when designing for online instruction. Three categories of social presence indicators emerged from the work of Garrison et al. These include the capacity to express emotions, ability to build open communication that is reciprocal and respectful, and activities that build and sustain group cohesion and a sense of group commitment. Cognitive Presence is the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). The introductory phase of building cognitive presence is a state of dissonance resulting from an educational experience. This is described in the literature as a triggering event. Following the triggering event, a period of exploration ensues and leads to a search for information that helps the student make sense of the situation or problem. The third phase of cognitive presence is the integration of this new information and knowledge into a cogent idea or concept. In this phase, the student seeks insights from the attainment of new knowledge that can be applied to future scenarios. The fourth, and final phase of cognitive presence, is the resolution of the problem and is typically described as the application of an idea. Success of the application determines whether the process of inquiry is complete. Teaching Presence is the design and organization, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally

5 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 4 worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). As Garrison et al., point out, facilitation is not solely the responsibility of the instructor, however, and may in fact be shared among the teacher and some or all of the students in the learning environment. The design and organization component of teaching presence refers to the planning and design of the structure, process, interaction, and evaluation of the course (Arbaugh, 2006). Swan (2003) found that clear and consistent course structure along with engaged instructors and dynamic discussions have been found to be the most consistent predictors of successful courses. Facilitating discourse, as conceptualized by Anderson et al. (2001) is the means by which students are engaged in interaction related to building knowledge from the information provided in the course instructional materials. This role is associated with not only facilitating discussion, but also with sharing meaning, identifying areas of agreement or disagreement, and building towards consensus for a common understanding. Direct instruction, the most common referent of teaching presence, considers the intellectual and scholarly leadership of the instructor based on their subject matter expertise. It includes the assessment and feedback of student performance, and requires the instructor to recognize student misunderstandings, often directing them to additional materials and/or relevant course interventions.

6 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 5 Figure 1: Community of Inquiry Framework. Adapted from Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education, by Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W., The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), Following the conceptualization of the CoI, a team of researchers constructed a survey instrument intended the measure the construct. The survey, now in its 14 th revision, includes 34 items and is included as an Appendix to this review. Arbaugh et al., (2008) measured the construct validity of the instrument, and found that all three variables loaded on the expected variable of presence. The results of the study suggest that the instrument is a valid, reliable, and efficient measure of the dimensions of social presence and cognitive presence, thereby providing additional support for the validity of the CoI as a framework for constructing effective online learning environments (CoI website, Specifically related to teaching presence, Shea et al. (2003) developed a more detailed 20-item survey, which they refer to as the Teaching Presence Scale (TPS). This survey included 6 questions designed to measure design and organization, 8 questions targeted at facilitating discourse, and 6 questions intended to measure direct instruction. Subsequent to the creation of TPS, Arbaugh & Hwang applied confirmatory factor analysis to the original scale and

7 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 6 determined that 16 of the 20 items fit well within the three components of teaching presence. This study established the internal validity of the scale and let to further refinement by Shea et al. In 2006, Shea et al. administered the TPS to over 1000 learners enrolled in online courses at 32 colleges with the State University of New York s learning network. Reliability analysis was applied to examine the TPS, and revealed satisfactory measures for Cronbach s Alpha across all three components of teaching presence; design and organization (.98), facilitated discourse (.97), and direct instruction (.93). The current survey is included as Appendix A. Both the CoI questionnaire, and its more focused TPS addendum have proven to be reliable and valid measures of the entire construct and teaching presence respectively. Although subsequent research has attempted to suggest additional factors for consideration, the scholarly community has yet to fully embrace a broader conceptualization of either scale. Method The goal of this literature review is to synthesize the scholarly communities current understanding of the teaching presence component of the Community of Inquiry (CoI). The originators of the CoI framework have created a publically accessible website ( which catalogs the current research published on their model. The 14 published research articles pertaining to teaching presence catalogued on this website were the starting point for gathering relevant research for this review. Google Scholar is particularly useful in aggregating peer-reviewed papers, articles, dissertations, books, and articles from practitioners. Therefore, an expanded search was performed on Google Scholar using the search terms Garrison Anderson Archer, community of inquiry, and teaching presence. Of the 1,690 references found, 23 were empirical studies that examined teaching presence as the primary focus. These studies, along with the collection found on the CoI website became the body of literature examined in this review.

8 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 7 Our Current Understanding of Teaching Presence Teaching presence, as a social phenomenon conceptualized in the Community of Inquiry, was first observed in a computer conferencing context in early forms of online learning (Anderson et al.). Online learning environments evolved from basic asynchronous communication between student and instructor, to more media rich environments that included synchronous communication and multi-media. Additionally, a hybrid form of learning subsequently materialized that blended virtual learning environments with elements of residential learning. Along the way, teaching presence has stood the test of time, and proven to be highly correlated with both student satisfaction and perceived learning (Garrison et al., 2005). The balance of this review of the literature focusses on the observed predictors of teaching presence, how it is instantiated in practice, its relationship to the other elements of the Community of Inquiry framework, and its presence throughout the execution of instruction. After describing our current understanding, I will discuss considerations for future research that may prove fertile ground for continued exploration. Moderators of teaching presence While teaching presence was being introduced as a component of the Community of Inquiry, the originators hypothesized that teaching style, discipline, size of the class, instructor experience in the online learning environment, and concurrent instructor workload may all be moderators of teaching presence (Anderson et al., 2001). Only two empirical studies were found since this original conception that attempted to confirm these initial thoughts. Arbaugh et al., found the instructor must clearly communicate goals, provide clear instructions regarding participation, set deadlines for student contributions, and determine guidelines to help students interact effectively (Arbaugh et al., 2006). These authors also concluded that instructors who

9 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 8 took on an expert role and provided ongoing process interventions, tended to promote discovery leading to an increase in teaching presence. A call for more fine grain exploration of instructor characteristics that may moderate the construct was repeated in a subsequent study (Arbaugh et al., 2007). The literature is conspicuously silent when it comes to moderators related specifically to the student. Knowing that responsibility for establishing teaching presence is not solely left to the instructor, this is a gap in our current knowledge and warrants further investigation. Teaching presence roles in the classroom As conceptualized, the most commonly observed element of teaching presence was presumed to be direct instruction (Anderson et al., 2001). Although subsequent research found this not always to be the case, (Kamin, 2006), it is true that instructors typically produce a significant amount direct instruction in a classroom setting (Rourke et al., 2002). While it may be natural to assume then, that instructors carry the burden for building teaching presence in the classroom, the originators of the construct caution us not to think of it as teacher s presence, and that students also contribute to building an observed level of teaching presence (Anderson et al., 2001). What follows is an examination of students, instructors, facilitators, and coaches roles in creating teaching presence in the classroom. In understanding the contributor the instructor makes to teaching presence, it is important to consider how the individual instructor conceives the online learning environment. Morgan (2011) found that the way instructors conceptualized the online interaction space had a direct influence on how they negotiated their teaching presence. It shouldn t be a surprise, but Morgan also found that there is considerable variation in how instructors perceive interaction spaces online. This has a practical impact on the role of instructional designers in that understanding the

10 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 9 instructor s conceptualization of the space may materially impact the ways in which designers construct curriculum. Making the job more difficult for designers is the fact that Morgan also concluded that in some cases, there is a disconnect between what instructors did, and what they intended to do in the online environment. Having said this, there is an unmistakable role for instructors in building teaching presence in the classroom. Bliss (2009) found a significant positive correlation between an instructor s participation and teaching presence. Although instructors participation in online discussion boards continues to vary greatly, Bliss found that increasing participation promotes student discussion. Interestingly, however, the majority of faculty posts contained little academic content, which seems to contradictory to the notion that instructors carry the burden of promoting direct instruction as it relates to teaching presence. This could be troublesome in trying to assess whether or not instructor contributions function to refocus or deepen students understanding of the academic content. Almost immediately after Anderson et al., (2001) declared teaching presence extended beyond the role of the instructor, the scholarly community responded by asking these simple questions, To what extent are students responsible for creating teaching presence? (Rourke, 2002), and Who carries the higher burden for producing teaching presence the teacher or the student? (Shea, 2003). Using peer teams to lead online discussions, Rourke et al., (2002), found that student peers were able to fulfill all three elements of teaching presence. In fact, it was observed that discussions led by students tended to be more structured than instructor-led discussions. Whereas instructor led discussions tend to focus on technical matters, peer led discussions focus more on social implications. This is important, because it suggests that students may derive satisfaction from opportunities to build teaching presence within the classroom setting. In analyzing discussion board activity in online courses, Bliss (2006) found

11 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 10 that student participation, as measured by quantity of posts, and the extent of collaboration with their peers, as measured by threading observed in the postings, were significant contributors to establishing teaching presence. In addition to instructors and students contributing to the influence of teaching presence, there is also evidence in the literature that both facilitators and coaches can contribute to the educational experience in similar ways. de la Varre (2011) illustrated how on-site facilitators in rural schools who make use of remote teachers in a blended delivery model assisted in setting the climate for learning, which is a key moderator of teaching presence. This project is especially important, because not only does it validate the role of teacher helpers in the classroom, but it also extends the core components of the CoI framework to non-online course components. As learning delivery models continue to mature, and instructors evolve from the simple dichotomous choice of classroom vs. online learning, the CoI continues to show its applicability in supporting not only fully online, but also blended and in residence instruction. We must also be mindful the role student-teachers, teaching assistants, and student coaches play in the classroom. Stenbom (2012) focused on the student-student coaching relationship as an additional means of inquiry. He concluded, once again, that teaching presence did correlate with coaches, although design and organization seems to be less of a priority in these situations. Often studentteachers focus on direct instruction and facilitating discourse with their peer mentees. Provided below is a summary which characterizes the various actors in the classroom, the roles they play in building teaching presence, and the techniques employed in support of their contributions to the construct. Table 1. Summary of Teaching Presence Roles Instructor Design & Organization Direct Instruction Facilitating Discourse Assume primary Most frequent Tremendous responsibility for contribution to TP variability in

12 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 11 Student Facilitators Student Coaches Instructional Design (Kamin, 2006) No empirical evidence of contributions Contribute to setting the climate for learning (de la Varre, 2011) Little attention paid to this element of TP (Stenbom, 2012) (Anderson et al., 2001) No empirical evidence of contributions No empirical evidence of contributions Most significant contribution to TP (Stenbom, 2012) instructor participation levels (Bliss, 2009) Peer led TP focusses on social aspects of discourse through threaded discussions (Rourke, 2002) Most frequent contribution to TP (de la Varre, 2011) No empirical evidence of contributions Correlation between teaching presence and satisfaction and learning Now that we understand who the main actors are in creating a meaningful teaching presence, it is important for us to explore how this teaching presence contributes to student learning. After all, one the major promises of the CoI is that learning environments that exhibit high degrees of all three elements lead to higher order learning for students. However, not only do we want students to learn, we also want them to be satisfied with the learning experience. Let s examine what we know about teaching presence and its effects on both student satisfaction and learning. Perhaps the first empirical study to examine student satisfaction as it relates to teaching presence was the work of Shea et al, Utilizing a substantial pool of 1150 students in the SUNY Learning network, they found that 85% of respondents expressed satisfaction with the instructional design and organization element of teaching presence, while 76% expressed satisfaction with the direction instruction and 73% expressed satisfaction with the facilitation of discourse element of teaching presence. Their findings suggest there is room for improvement with how instructors facilitate discussions online, and may account for the tremendous variability

13 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 12 in instructor participation in this element found earlier as it relates to teaching presence. These authors also found that satisfaction as it relates to direct instruction rated much higher for instructors than it did for their fellow students. This may suggest that of all the actors described above, teachers carry a higher burden than others for producing high levels of teaching presence. Turning our attention then to student learning, the literature has a great deal to say about the correlation between teaching presence and learning outcomes. Although we know that discussions on subject matter support higher order learning tasks (Rourke, 2002), and teaching presence supports students sense of a learning community (Shea et al., 2006), there is currently a general disagreement amongst the scholarly community as to whether the existence of teaching presence promotes higher order learning. Garrison (2005) argued that teaching presence contributes to the adoption of a deep approach to learning, and the quality of interaction as described in critical discourse must be a specific instructional design goal if deep approaches to learning are to be achieved. This viewpoint is forfeited by the work of Akyol et al., (2008) who found that both teaching presence and cognitive presence were correlated with perceived learning. It is precisely this notion of perceived learning, however, that Rourke and others take issue with. In a thorough review of the extent literature, Rourke et al., (2009) found that the only measure of learning used to date when measuring teaching presence was self-report data. In over 200 reports that cite the CoI, only 5 empirical studies measure perceived student learning as reported by the student themselves. Since 2009, only one additional study attempted to map teaching presence learning outcomes as measured through student performance grades. Shea et al., (2010) found the correlation between the expression of teaching presence and the assignment of student grades was statistically significant, albeit for a rather small convenience sample of 17 students.

14 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 13 While it appears students believe they learn a great deal in the CoI, it remains to be proven whether this learning is the kind of deep, higher order learning intentioned by the model, or the type of learning we would categorize at the lower level of Bloom s taxonomy. Rourke s charge to the scholarly community for further research that connects teaching presence and the other elements of the CoI to real student learning seems to be justified. Correlating post-course assessments and/or instructor assigned letter grades with teaching presence is a task the scholarly community has yet to take on in earnest. Teaching presence influence on both social and cognitive presence In considering what we know about teaching presence, it is important to understand its relationship with both cognitive and social presence within the broader context of the CoI. Garrison & Cleveland-Innes (2005) characterize this relationship through their assertion that teaching presence provides the structure and leadership to establish both social and cognitive presence. While the CoI does not define an ordered sequence of each of the elements, it is reasonable to conclude that an instructor sets the tone through design and organization of the course, and therefore, teaching presence would logically begin to emerge before processes associated with either social or cognitive presence are initiated. Establishing elements of teaching presence logically precede social and cognitive presence is important, yet the question still remains, can a community of learners negotiate higher order learning through open communication and group cohesion alone? Garrison & Cleveland-Innes (2005) argue that social presence, on its own, may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the type of deep learning promised by the CoI. This assertion is supported by the earlier work of Pawan (2003), who found that without an instructor s explicit guidance, students were found to engage primarily in serial monologues in online discussions.

15 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 14 Pawan describes these discussions as being heavy on the exploration of new knowledge, but very light in terms of integration of new knowledge, and the virtual non-existence of higher order resolution of this knowledge. Vaughan et al., (2005) found that teaching presence, and more specifically direct instruction, is necessary to promote resolution in a blended learning environment. Therefore, it appears that teaching presence is critical to not only setting the tone within the learning environment, but also plays a vital role in pushing the community of inquiry to resolve new knowledge following a proposed triggering event offered through course instruction. Sustaining teaching presence throughout the course An interesting additional area of research that has emerged in the scholarly community on teaching presence is related to the influence of the construct throughout the life of a course of study. Important questions such as, does teaching presence ebb and flow, or maintain a consistent level throughout a course?, and are specific elements of teaching presence required at specific times in the course delivery? have become central to this line of inquiry. These questions have important implications for both instructional designers and teachers, and while we know more today about typical patterns, the scholarly community has yet to draw conclusions from these patterns and establish a best practice. One of the first studies to look at the cyclicality of teaching presence in the classroom was presented in the context of case study examining medical teaching preparation in problembased learning groups (Kamin, 2006). Results indicated that design and organization was predictably high in the beginning of the course, and direct instruction declined proportionately with a steady increase in facilitation of discourse. While all three elements were present, it

16 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 15 appears that instructors make intentional choices about which element to emphasize throughout the duration of the course. There are many course activities and artifacts that contribute to teaching presence. Akyol (2008) looked specifically at the presence of teaching presence elements observed in online course discussions. He found that while design and organization was coded the least in these conversations, direct instruction steadily increased over time. Looking specifically at the individual course investigated, he also found that facilitating discourse seemed to be the element that appeared with the most variability throughout the lifecycle of the course. The instructor played a significant role in moderating discussions at the beginning of the course, permitted students to moderate the discussions in the middle of the course, and then appeared to re-engage in facilitation tasks near the end of the course. While this transcript analysis of online discussions informs us as to the presence of teaching presence over time, we are left wondering whether these findings are generalizable to other forms of online learning, and whether this pattern is most effective in achieving higher order learning within the community. Looking beyond online discussions to include a broader array of course artifacts has also been explored in the literature. Shea et al., (2010) examined discussions, as well as course traffic, announcements, lecture materials, assignments, and a general Q&A forum provided through the online repository for 2 graduate level business courses. The authors found evidence that teaching presence occurred with much greater frequency outside of the traditional threaded discussions, and supported the assertion made previously that teaching presence varied significantly both within and between courses for both instructors and students. Through these examples we see that patterns are beginning to emerge that describe the variability of teaching presence over the course of delivery. We also see that in the emerging

17 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 16 complexity of blended learning, teaching presence is not confined simply to online discussion forums. What remains a mystery is further articulation of the kinds of self-regulation of teaching presence that contribute to the variability described, nor has the scholarly community come to consensus regarding a best practice usage pattern for building and establishing teaching presence in a manner consistent with achieving higher order learning on the part of the student learner. Extending the conceptualization of Teaching Presence In the thirteen years since the conceptualization of the CoI framework, much has been learned about each of its three core elements. This literature review has focused strictly on our current understanding of one of these elements, teaching presence. While progress has been made regarding our instrumentation for measuring teaching presence, the actors involved in its materialization, and its connection to student perceptions of satisfaction and learning, there remains legitimate questions worthy of further exploration by the scholarly community. I would like to conclude this literature by offering new frontiers of research that are likely to extend the application of the framework and further crystalize best practices for practitioners seeking to promote enhanced learning environments with a community of inquiry. By their own admission, the originators of the CoI acknowledge the initial conceptualization was intended to address the learning potential in a computer-mediated conferencing context. Over the last decade however, higher education as seen an evolution towards more blended learning environments that include elements of both online and face-toface instruction. Shea et al., (2006) call for more research to understand how to increase the average level of learning community elements across both classroom and online environments. Teaching presence is a universal social phenomenon that appears relevant regardless of delivery method, and further efforts to explore the transferability of presence across these environments

18 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 17 will assist instructors who increasingly find their teaching spanning more than one of these mediums. Understanding the predictors of teaching presence that are transferrable, or may require different approaches may allow administrators to make more thoughtful choices regarding faculty assignments by leveraging the individual strengths of instructors given the intended delivery method of individual courses. This line of inquiry will also be valuable in helping to identify potential interventions that focus on building specific behaviors that lead to teaching presence yet may not be easily translated from one learning environment to the next. It is hard to deny the central role that instructors play in fostering teaching presence in their learning communities. However, little is currently know regarding the characteristics of instructors that predict high levels of presence. Although we know some of the instructor tactics that produce teaching presence, there is little empirical evidence today that allows us to build the profile of an exemplar performance. Future studies that examine the demographic and attitudinal characteristics that correlate highly an observed high level of teaching presence could help illuminate the key criteria to be used in screening instructor candidates. Another key area of future research already raised in the literature that deserves repeating, is the need to tie the existence of teaching presence with objective measurement of student learning. As Rourke et al., (2009) rightly point out, relying solely on self-report data from students fails to provide conclusive evidence that the promise of high order learning is truly being fulfilled. Student perception of learning and actual learning are not the same thing, and I concur with authors who suggest that more substantive analysis of learning in the CoI that include instructor evaluation of performance are needed. Finally, with the understanding that the TPS was originally conceived through a detailed analysis of online discussion transcripts, there will be an increasing need to revisit this core

19 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 18 measurement instrument as the number of tools and artifacts available to instructors online continues to grow. The use of wikis, multi-media, and synchronous chat, all represent additional opportunities to build teaching presence. These tools not only enrich the learning environment, but they may help us uncover a more complete definition for teaching presence itself. For example, Shea et al., posited that the TPS may need to be expanded to include a fourth element of teaching presence, assessment. This new element was discovered in analyzing the feedback instructors provided to learners in online assignments. Although there has not been formal adoption of this fourth element in the scale to date, it does call into question whether our conceptualization of the construct is fully discovered. Scholars should continue to pursue research opportunities that explore the artifacts of online learning in a more comprehensive way as a means to extend our existing theoretical base. Conclusion The purpose of this literature review was to illuminate our current understanding of the teaching presence element of the Community of Inquiry. I did so by synthesizing data from existing empirical studies stemming from Garrison et al. s (2001) seminal work. Teaching presence has shown to be highly predictive of both student satisfaction and perceived student learning across a multitude of learning environments, including fully online, blended, and faceto-face delivery methods. The literature to date has explored the role that the instructor, student, facilitators, and peer coaches all play in contributing to the existence of teaching presence. Teaching presence takes a leadership role in setting the climate and appears to precede both social and cognitive presence in the community of inquiry. However, there is a tremendous amount of observed variability with levels of teaching presence sustained throughout the typical lifecycle of a given course. The types and quantities of techniques that lead to teaching presence

20 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 19 are mere casual observations in the literature currently, and future research should focus on building best practices by measuring teaching presence caused by specific actions undertaken at specific times during the instruction. The main suggestion for extending our current knowledge of teaching presence is to align guidance for building and sustaining teaching presence with emerging patterns of teacher role assignments. As individual faculty members are increasingly being asked to teach in both faceto-face and online environments, yet to be explored is the degree to which activities that contribute to teaching presence are transferrable between environments.

21 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 20 Appendix Design & Organization Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (draft v14) Teaching Presence 1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics. 2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals. 3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. 4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities. Facilitation 5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn. 6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. 7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue. 8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. 9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course. 10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants. Direct Instruction 11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn. 12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. 13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion. Affective expression Social Presence 14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course. 15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. 16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.

22 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 21 Open communication 17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. 18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. 19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants. Group cohesion 20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust. 21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. 22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration. Triggering event Cognitive Presence 23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues. 24. Course activities piqued my curiosity. 25. I felt motivated to explore content related questions. Exploration 26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course. 27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions. 28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives. Integration 29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities. 30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions. 31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class. Resolution 32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course. 33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.

23 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities. 5 point Likert-type scale 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

24 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 23 References 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(3), Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does teaching presence exist in online MBA courses?. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), Bliss, C. A., & Lawrence, B. (2009). From posts to patterns: A metric to characterize discussion board activity in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), Daspit, J. J., & D'Souza, D. E. (2012). Using the community of inquiry framework to introduce wiki environments in blended-learning pedagogies: Evidence from a business capstone course. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4),

25 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 24 de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Dual perspectives on the contribution of on-site facilitators to teaching presence in a blended learning environment. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'éducation à Distance, 25(3). Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 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), 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), Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), Kamin, C. S., O'Sullivan, P., Deterding, R. R., Younger, M., & Wade, T. (2006). A case study of teaching presence in virtual problem-based learning groups. Medical Teacher, 28(5),

26 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 25 Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), Morgan, T. (2011). Online classroom or community-in-the-making? Instructor conceptualizations and teaching presence in international online contexts (Winner 2011 Best Research Article Award). The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'éducation à Distance, 25(1). Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature (Winner 2009 Best Research Article Award). The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'éducation à Distance, 23(1), Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of interactive media in education, 2002(1). Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of

27 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 26 measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (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(3), Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY learning network. Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, 4, Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), Stenbom, S., Hrastinski, S., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2012). Student-student online coaching as a relationship of inquiry: An exploratory study from the coach perspective. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 16(5). Swann, J. (2010). A dialogic approach to online facilitation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1),

28 Community of Inquiry: Our current understanding of teaching presence 27 Torras, M. E., & Mayordomo, R. (2011). Teaching presence and regulation in an electronic portfolio. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 1-12.