backchannel research residency proposal 20090813 finalx
Post on 30-May-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
1/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 1
Running head: EXAMINING PARALLEL SYNCHRONOUS CMC
Examining Parallel Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication (CMC)
Jennifer Maddrell
Old Dominion University
IDT 895 Research Residency
Dr. Gary Morrison
August 13, 2009
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
2/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 2
Introduction
Educators are facing a new form of virtual note passing in the form ofbackchannel or
parallel text-chat communication occurring simultaneously with the instructional presentation.
The parallel computer-mediated communication (CMC) is sparking debate among researchers
and practitioners regarding what interactions learners should engage in during live instructional
presentation (Fried, 2008). Learners backchannel interactions during lecture are viewed by
educators as either a bold step forward in instruction that offers a new opportunity to facilitate
increased content and human interaction or an unnecessary distraction to the learning task at
hand (Guess, 2008).
Parallel Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication
The newest synchronous CMC technologies used during instruction include options for
parallel voice, video, and text-based channels of communication as found in leading online
conferencing systems, including Elluminate Live and Adobe Connect (Schullo, Hilbelink,
Venable, & Barron, 2007). While audio and video communication tends to dominate the main
channel instructional presentation in the synchronous online conferencing environment, the text-
chat feature supports the spontaneous and unfacilitated parallel (backchannel, sidebar, or side-
talk) exchanges among participants.
While many studies have examined asynchronous CMC in distance education, far less
research has been conducted on learners experiences with synchronous CMC (Park & Bonk,
2007). In addition, no studies have examined the impact of parallel communication during
synchronous computer-mediated instructional presentation. Research based on cognitive load
theory suggests that the learners parallel communication may pose a negative disorienting
distraction and increase extraneous cognitive load. However, when considered in light of other
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
3/38
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
4/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 4
CLT, the instructional design of the learning environment should attempt to manage intrinsic
load, minimize extraneous load, and optimize germane load (Kester, Kirschner, & van
Merrinboer, 2006). Sweller and Chandler (1994) suggest that high cognitive load is directly
related to interactivity caused by either the nature of the to-be-learned material (intrinsic
cognitive load) or by the presentation (extraneous cognitive load). The to-be-learned material is
considered to have high interactivity if there are numerous elements which must be processed
simultaneously (van Merrinboer & Sweller, 2005). If the element interactivity is low (hence the
intrinsic cognitive load is low), then extraneous load may be less of a concern; but in complex
learning situations where the intrinsic element interactivity is high, it is necessary to carefully
manage the learning environment to avoid unnecessary instructional interactivity in order to
reduce extraneous cognitive load (Sweller & Chandler). Thus, a concern when using a
synchronous learning environment that includes parallel communications (e.g., text chat) is that
the environment my increase extraneous load by increasing communication through additional
channels.
Moreno and Mayer (2007) examined interactivity as a characteristic of the learning
environment in which the interactivity results in a variation in the instruction based on the
learners actions. They suggest interactivity can be considered a continuum ranging from no
interactivity to high interactivity. Moreno and Mayer note that the challenge for designers
working in interactive multimodal learning environments with ever increasing opportunities for
interactivity is to reduce extraneous cognitive load imposed by the interactivity while at the same
time using the interactivity to increase generative cognitive processing. Therefore, an important
question is whether the interactivity involved with backchannel interactions is extraneous load
within the learning environment or germane to the process of learning.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
5/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 5
Instructional activities that encourage mental effort in schema construction and
automation are viewed as processes that optimize increase germane cognitive load (van
Merrinboer & Sweller, 2005). Advances in computer-mediated instructional technologies make
it possible to do more than direct teaching and to use the technology to assist learners as they
actively select, organize, and integrate new information (Winn, 2004). Some suggest that
synchronous computer-mediated discussion helps learners move from surface understanding to
more deep learning as they reflect and respond to questions from peers and the instructor
(Havard, Jianxia Du, & Olinzock, 2005). Moreno and Mayer (2007) view this process as a
difference between facilitating information acquisition and supporting knowledge construction.
As discussed below, research suggests that while backchannel interactions may be distraction to
the learning task at hand, the parallel CMC may optimize germane cognitive load by promoting
task engagement, supporting computer-mediated discourse, and fostering increased levels of
teaching, cognitive, and social presence thereby aiding the learners understanding of the
instructional content.
Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication
The set of available synchronous CMC tools in online conferencing systems, including
public and private text-chat, video and audio interfaces, web browsers, polling tools, application
sharing, and whiteboards, offer instructors and learners in distance education classrooms
expanded opportunities for interaction, communications, and content sharing (Shi & Morrow,
2006). Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on learner experiences in these online
conferencing environments. However, a parallel can be drawn between learners backchannel
interactions in a synchronous computer-mediate instructional presentation and a learners laptop
use within a face-to-face classroom lecture settings, as well as student passing notes in a
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
6/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 6
traditional class. In both instructional settings, the learner is faced with parallel channels of
communication.
While research on laptop use in the classroom lecture setting may provide one of the
closest bodies of research to synchronous online conferencing interactions, contradictory
research findings abound. In a recent review of in-class laptop studies, Fried (2008) describes a
significant body of research suggesting that laptop use in the classroom lecture setting is a
potential source of distraction and cognitive overload. Frieds own study on in-class laptop use
found that students laptop use during classroom lectures regularly included interactions other
than taking lecture notes and was negatively related to several measures of learning. However,
other studies suggest that computer use in the classroom can promote classroom interaction and
participation which, in turn, increases engagement, motivation, and active learner participation.
Barak, Lipson, and Lerman (2006) suggest from their research that while computer use by
students during live lecture can lead to distraction when students are engaged in non-directed
interactions (such as checking personal e-mail), facilitated computer use can assist in the
learners understanding of the subject material, support immediate feedback and help, promote
multiple interactions among learners and instructors, and offer learners the ability to share work,
ideas, and learner interpretations.
Task Engagement
Given the lack of direct research on synchronous CMC backchannel interactions, it is
unclear whether learners text-chatting in the backchannel are engaged in the presentation at hand
or whether they are communicating in other unrelated conversations. However, due to factors
such as increased anonymity, a sense of altered responsibility, and novel or unstructured
situations, research suggests that some participants in synchronous CMC find the physical
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
7/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 7
separation provides a freedom from distraction which allows them to become more self-
disclosing and engaged in the task at hand (Coleman, Paternite, & Sherman, 1999). These
findings suggest that the text-based backchannel may lead to greater learner task engagement.
Computer-Mediated Discourse
Research suggests that technology mediated discourse differs from face-to-face
communication and is generally characterized by longer turns, fewer interruptions, less overlaps,
and increased formality in switching among speakers (Marshall & Novick, 1995). Research also
indicates that electronic communication tends to decrease levels of communication as compared
to face-to-face communication which may be the result of reduced use of speech
acknowledgements, such as Uh-hmm, or typical social greetings (DeSanctis & Monge, 1998).
Their findings also suggest that participants engaging in mediated conversation may experience
difficulty in establishing meaning of information and managing feedback, but that attention to
maintaining mutual understanding across the group can help to ensure effective communication.
In addition, research in dialogue and communication suggests a joint role for learners as
co-narrators in the instructional presentation. A large body of research supports a collaborative
theory of conversation which focuses on the joint construction of conversation in which
interactive and collaborative aspects of the conversation help to support full understanding and to
achieve the overall expectations for the conversation (Marshall & Novick, 1995).
Bavelas, Coates, and Johnson (2000) explored the various conceptions of communication
models beginning with the classic Shannon and Weaver (1963) communication model which
focuses on a single channel from sender to receiver and suggests an autonomous view of
conversation in which the listener passively receives information delivered from the speaker. In
contrast to this view, Bavelas et al. note other conceptions and research which focus on dialogue
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
8/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 8
as a joint activity, including research which examines the reciprocal effect of listener responses.
In this view, communication is not just for information transmission, but also for co-construction
of the message in which dialogue evolves from the reciprocal influence between narrators and
listeners (Bavelas et al).
Based on dialogue analysis research it is feasible that the backchannel can provide
presenters with signals (or markers) from the learner to gauge their level of understanding which
would allow an adjustment to the presentation based on the cues from the learners. Research
suggests that speakers monitor their own speech and adjust their presentations based on their
assessments of the listeners level of understanding (Clark & Krych, 2004). These findings
suggest that dialogue includes two activities, including support for the primary presentation of
information and management of the dialogue itself. As such, dialogue exists in both a front (or
main) channel which includes the primary speaker and in a backchannel which includes the
speech and signals from others occurring at same time as primary speakers turn (Bangerter &
Clark, 2003). These listener backchannel responses, also referred to as project markers, play a
role in shaping the presentation by providing the speaker with markers to chart progress and by
signaling to the presenter that the listener is ready to transition with the presentation, including a)
acknowledgement tokens in which the listener acknowledges the presentation through utterances,
such as uh-huh, b) agreement tokens in which the listener agrees with the presenters position,
such as right, and c) consent tokens inwhich the listener approves of the presenters
comments, such as okay.
The learner responses in the backchannel may enhance and shape the main channel
message of the presentation while providing on-the-fly reflection which the instructor can
monitor to check for learners understanding and adjust the presentationbased on the learners
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
9/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 9
responses. If backchannel interactions are considered signals from the learner as listener, the
presenter could use the responses as project markers to gauge how to segment and sequence the
presentation. By monitoring the learners public backchannel conversations and by assessing
when the learners are ready to make transitions within the presentation, the presenter could use
the backchannel interactions to overcome some of the obstacles associated with commuter-
mediated discourse. However, monitoring the backchannel may increase the instructors
cognitive load and disrupt the flow of the instruction when the instructor stops speaking to read
the backchannel.
Community of Inquiry (CoI)
The Community of Inquiry (CoI) model was proposed as a conceptual framework for the
optimal use of CMC in distance education to facilitate critical inquiry and discourse within a
computer-mediated learning environment (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). In describing
the CoI, Garrison et al. suggest the framework builds on prior research and constructivist
approaches to learning and that by fostering cognitive, teaching, and social presence (described
below) within the learning environment, a deep and meaningful educational experience develops.
Over the past decade, the CoI framework has been a popular foundation for researchers
studying asynchronous CMC and interaction in distance education. A recent review of Google
Scholar lists over 1,300 citations to the original series of articles on the CoI framework written
during the late 1990s and early 2000s, including articles by Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and
Archer (2001), Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000); Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and
Archer (1999). However, the CoI framework and the body of surrounding research have recently
been criticized for a suggested lack of validation that the model leads to deep and meaningful
learning (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009). In a rebuttal to the criticism, others argue that the negative
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
10/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 10
perceptions about the CoI framework and existing research are misguided and a
misrepresentation of both the nature of the framework, as well as the purpose and conclusions of
previous studies (Akyol, Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2009).
Akyol et al. argue that it is unreasonable to criticize the underlying value of the CoI as
educational inquiry process model (emphasizing the process of knowledge construction, critical
inquiry, and discourse) based on an absence of existing studies examining the influence of the
model on objective measures of learning outcomes. They further suggest that a range of studies
have examined the CoI in relation to students self-reports ofperceivedlearning and cite a recent
study within Akyols 2009 doctoral dissertation which suggests learners perceptions of
cognitive presence are associated with both perceived learning and learning outcomes (grades).
Cognitive presence. Cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which learners
construct meaning through both reflection and discourse and is suggested to be a vital element in
critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2000). Some social constructivists view CMC technologies as
vehicles to support student-to-student discourse to facilitate co-creation of meaning and
understanding (Paulus, 2007). Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997) suggest knowledge
construction via asynchronous CMC consisting of five phases, including (a) sharing and
comparing of information, (b) discovery and exploration of cognitive dissonance, (c) negotiation
of meaning and co-construction of knowledge, (d) testing and modification of proposed co-
construction, and (e) agreement and applications of newly constructed meaning. Yet, some
research suggests that learners in CMC supported classrooms rarely move beyond the sharing
and comparing of information (Paulus). Unfortunately, while research suggests that online
student-to-student interactions may lead to increased communication among learners, some feel
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
11/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 11
it is unclear whether the communication is associated with deep and meaningful learning
(Rourke & Kanuka, 2009).
Social presence. Social presence within the context of a computer-mediated classroom is
the degree to which learners feel connected while engaging in mediated communication (Swan &
Shih, 2005). Recent research on social presence in computer-mediated environments builds upon
the concept of social presence from the work of Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) in
technology-mediated communication. Social presence is often used as a theoretical framework in
the study of asynchronous computer-mediated communication (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, &
Keer, 2006). Research on social presence in asynchronous computer-mediated learning
environments has moved beyond an evaluation of the mediums effect on social presence to an
evaluation of how social presence can be cultivated through instructional methods to support
critical thinking and critical discourse within the computer-mediated environment (Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer, 2000).
Some argue that while social presence alone will not ensure the development of critical
discourse, it is difficult for such discourse to develop without it (Garrison & Martha Cleveland-
Innes, 2005). Others suggests social presence is related to student satisfaction (Garrison &
Arbaugh, 2007; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison,
& Archer, 1999; So & Brush, 2008). Research suggests that (a) interactivity impacts social
presence, (b) patterns of communication and perceptions of social presence change over time,
and (c) social presence can be impacted by the social context, the design of the instruction, and
the support of the instructor (Garrison & Arbaugh; Gunawardena; Gunawardena & Zittle; So &
Brush).
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
12/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 12
Pelowski, Frissell, Cabral, and Yu (2005) conducted a study to identify various
immediacy behaviors within synchronous CMC text-chat logs with the goal of better
understanding learners feelings of social presence and the impact on learning. The researchers
note that while a positive relationship has been found between perceptions of immediacy and
performance in face-to-face environments, little immediacy research within synchronous
computer-mediated instruction has been studied. Citing various research findings from
traditional face-to-face classrooms, Pelowski et al. note that immediacy behaviors, such as
calling others by name, smiling or engaging in eye content, have been shown to enhance
perceptions of closeness or immediacy to others. These findings suggest that the text-based
backchannel may lead to increased social presence. However, Pelowski, et al. found significant
variation in overall chat participation, as well as in immediacy behaviors. Acknowledgement,
salutations, and questions were observed in nearly all students at least once. Agreement or
disagreement was shown at least once by over 80% of the students. Humor, self-disclosure self-
discloser, and value statements appeared less frequently, but at least once by over 60% of
students.
Yet, while some studies suggest a positive relationship among online interactions and
students perceptions of both social presence and learning (Swan & Shih, 2005), Pelowski et al.
(2005) found no significant correlation between immediacy behaviors in the text-chat
environment and actual learner performance. Unfortunately, these findings may suggest that
while online interactions lead to increased learner perceptions (self-reports) of learning and
social presence, these perceptions may not be equivalent to actual learner performance (Rourke
& Kanuka, 2009).
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
13/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 13
Teaching presence.Within the CoI framework, teaching presence is defined as, the
design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing
personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson et al., 2001,
p. 5). Teaching presence is described as a binding elementwhich influences the development of
both cognitive and social presence through the direction and leadership of the educational
experience and is comprised of three primary components, including (a) instructional design and
organization, (b) facilitation of discourse, and (c) direct instruction (Garrison et al., 2000).
Research in teaching presence suggests the critical importance and influence of instructional
strategies and facilitation techniques on the quality of discourse, as well as the success of the
educational experience (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
CoI research methods. As noted, the CoI has been frequently used as a framework for the
study of computer-mediated learning environments. The initial studies involving the CoI have
been described as interpretivistin nature using transcript analysis as a means of exploring,
understanding, and describing learner interactions and discourse occurring within the learning
environment (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Rourke et al. (1999) presented a content analysis categorization for examining social
presence from the transcripts of an asynchronous computer-mediated environment which has
been used to examine social presence within online discussions in subsequent studies (Rourke &
Anderson, 2004). Based on defined categories and indicators of social presence, including (a)
emotional expression seen in affective responses, (b) open communication seen in interactive
responses, and (c) group cohesion seen in cohesive responses, Rourke et al. assigned messages in
asynchronous text-based transcripts to one of the three categories and measured the social
presence density by dividing the number of social presence indicators coded in the transcript by
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
14/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 14
the number of total words in the transcript. A similar calculation was done at the level of each
indicator. While no attempt was made in the study to draw conclusions from the resulting social
presence densities, subsequent research suggests a strong relationship between social presence
and perceived learning, as well as between activities that increase social presence and learner
satisfaction (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) offered a similar transcript analysis method to
assess cognitive presence in an asynchronous computer-mediated environment. A set of
descriptors, categories, and indicators for each of the four phases of the practical inquiry model
embedded in the CoI framework were developed, including (a) the triggering event in which an
issue or problem is identified through evocative discourse, (b) exploration in which students
explore the issue through critical reflection and inquisitive discourse, (c) integration in which
learners construct meaning from ideas formed during exploration within tentative discourse, and
(d) resolution in which learners apply the knowledge in committeddiscourse. A systematic
procedure was established for assigning segments of the asynchronous text-based transcript to
each of the four phases. The relative frequency of each of the four cognitive presence categories
was compared. As a percentage of total segments, 8% were coded as trigger messages, 42% as
exploration messages, 13% as integration messages, and only 4% as resolution messages. While
the researchers report significant challenges in establishing a replicable coding scheme, they
found the process of analyzing transcripts a promising approach for assessing the degree of
cognitive presence within an online course.
Similar to the transcript analysis methods describe above, Anderson et al. (2001)
developed a format to assess the existence of online teaching presence through content analysis
of asynchronous computer conferencing transcripts. Like the procedures described above,
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
15/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 15
content analysis included collecting samples from transcripts in different online courses and
devising rules for categorizing segments of the texts. Segments of the transcript were selected at
the message unit and categorized into one of the three teaching presence categories, including (a)
instructional design and organization, (b) facilitation of discourse, and (c) direct instruction.
Over 75% of all teacher messages included some form of direct instruction while instructional
design was observed the least frequently within between 22% and 33% of the messages.
Messages related to the facilitation of discourse varied widely across the observed courses with
between 43% and 75% of the teacher messages. While results from this study suggest significant
differences in the extent and type of teaching presence within a given online course, a growing
body of research suggest a positive relationship between teaching presence and students
perceptions of satisfaction and learning (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
As part of an effort to move beyond the initial descriptive studies of computer-mediated
discourse and interaction in a distance classroom, a team of researchers recently developed and
tested a 34 item five-point Likert type scale survey instrument to measure learners perceptions
of cognitive, social, and teaching presence within a computer-mediated learning environment
(Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2008; Community of
Inquiry Survey | Community of Inquiry, n.d.). While others have also attempted to capture
learners perceptions ofthe CoI presences using a variety of survey instruments (Gunawardena,
1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; So & Brush, 2008; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu, 2002), a primary
objective of creating a new survey instrument was to examine the relationships among perceived
cognitive, social, and teaching presences, as well as their relationships to learning outcomes
(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Following a multi-institution study utilizing the original version of
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
16/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 16
the survey, Arbaugh et al. suggest that the CoI survey offers a valid measure of teaching, social
and cognitive presence.
In other research utilizing the 34 item CoI survey instrument with over 2,000 college
participants, Shea and Bidjerano (2009) added their support for the validity of the survey through
factor analysis. Their research findings also suggest that both social presence and teaching
presence are correlated with cognitive presence. Further, 70% of the variance in learners
perception of cognitive presence was linked to learners perceptions of the teachers ability to
foster teaching and social presence. In addition, social presence associated with online discussion
was strongly correlated with variance in cognitive presence. While lower levels of comfort with
online discussion was seen to be strongly correlated with lower levels of cognitive presence,
teaching presence did appear to have a moderating role. When the learners perceived the teacher
taking an active role in managing the online discussion, the learners reported higher levels of
cognitive presence.
Within a subsequent survey of over 5,000 college students, Shea and Bidjerano (in press)
modified the CoI survey items related to teaching presence in an effort to better assess the
instructors influence. From the responses to the modified 37 item survey instrument, the
researchers conducted a factor analysis which suggested that teaching presence, social presence,
and cognitive presence accounted for 69.19 % of the variance in the correlation matrix or
58.17%, 7.91%, and 3.11% respectively for each factor. Contrary to prior research conducted
using transcript analysis noted above, the majority of the over 5,000 students responding to the
survey reported achieving the highest levels of cognitive presence which the researchers
speculate points to a limitation in relying solely on the content analysis of discussion transcripts
to evaluate levels of cognitive presence and learning. Further, through cluster analysis of
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
17/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 17
respondents, the researchers suggest that membership within a particular teaching and social
presence cluster is strongly associated with the learners perceptions of cognitive presence.
Extending the findings reported earlier by Shea and Bidjerano (2009), learners with low
perceptions of both social presence and teaching presence were more likely to report low
cognitive presence, but for those with low perceptions of social presence and high perceptions of
teaching presence (or low perceptions of teaching presence and high perceptions of social
presence), the cognitive presence scores were higher which suggests a moderating influence of
both teaching presence and social presence on cognitive presence.
Purpose of Study
The primary task of this study is to assess where parallel computer-mediated backchannel
interactions during instructional presentation fall within the cognitive load equation. Based upon
prior research, it is possible that backchannel interactions increase extraneous cognitive load by
splitting learners attention between two competing channels of communication which could
result in decreased participation, as well as lower perceptions of satisfaction, learning, teaching
presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. However, it is also possible that the parallel
communication helps to facilitate the learning process by improving dialogue among participants
and improving learners perceptions of satisfaction, learning, teaching presence, social presence,
and cognitive presence. While the backchannel interactions may distract some learners and
interfere with their receipt of the instructional message, the backchannel interactions may offer
some learners more control over social distance and help to improve CMC effectiveness.
It is predicted that a positive correlation exists among learners perceptions oftheir (a)
experiences communicating within the synchronous computer-mediated environment, (b)
perceived satisfaction, (c) perceived learning, (d) participation level in the discussions, and (e)
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
18/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 18
teaching presence, (f) social presence, and (g) cognitive presence. However, it is further
predicted that perception levels will not be the same across learners. Learners who feel distracted
and overwhelmed by the parallel communication will have low perceptions of the computer-
mediated communication occurring within the environment and will have likewise lower levels
of perceived satisfaction, learning, personal participation, and teaching, social, and cognitive
presence. In contrast, some learners will be comfortable following and participating in the
parallel channels of synchronous CMC and will have high perceptions of the communication
occurring within the environment, as well as relatively higher levels of perceived satisfaction,
perceived learning, personal participation, teaching, social, and cognitive presence. It is also
predicted that certain learner characteristics, including past online course experience, computer
expertise, and proficiency with the web-conferencing interface positively influence the learners
perceptions of these variables. This study will focus on the following research questions:
1. What is the nature of the parallel text-chat communication?2. What aspects of the backchannel communication make the learners feel more (or less)
connected to communication in the main channel?
3. How can a parallel text-based channel be used to gauge and foster the learners presencewith the main channel communication?
4. Are text-based communications tied to identifiable points (e.g., new idea, elaboration,question answering, and clarification) in a lecture?
Method
Participants
Participants in this study will be graduate-level students enrolled in two fall 2009
distance education courses, including Foundations of Adult Education and Training with
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
19/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 19
approximately 30 students at Old Dominion University (ODU) in the United States and
Computers in the Classroom: Appropriate Curriculum and Instruction Related to Computer
Technologywith approximately 20 students at The University of Regina in Canada. As of
August 1, 2009, the instructors for both courses have confirmed their interest in participating in
the study, as shown in Appendix A. While the universities offer distance courses in a range of
formats, these courses are chosen as the live synchronous computer-mediated online sessions are
conducted using a web-based audio-visual conferencing system with a parallel text-chat
interface. However, while the conferencing system used in the course held in the United States
does not offer two-way audio among all participants, the system facilitating the course in Canada
does make two-way audio communication among all participants possible. In addition, some
students in the course at ODU will be at on-campus locations and will not have access to the
text-chat interface.
Procedure
A mixed methods research design approach is selected for this study to examine the
relationship among learners experiences and perceptions of their (a) communication within the
synchronous computer-mediated environment, (b) perceived satisfaction, (c) perceived learning,
(d) level of participation in the discussions, (e) teacher presence, (f) social presence, and (g)
cognitive presence. A collection of survey data early in the semester and near the end of the
semester and a subsequent quantitative analysis of the data will examine the relationships among
the noted variables. In addition, the nature of the actual text-chat communication among
students, including the level of text-chat participation and evidence of teaching, social, and
cognitive presence within the parallel text-chat channel will be explored through a quantitative
and qualitative content analysis of the text-chat transcripts of three synchronous web-conference
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
20/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 20
sessions held in early, mid, and later sessions of the fall 2009 semester. In addition, a brief
follow up interview will be conducted with a frequent text-chat participant and an infrequent text
chat participant to gain more detailed insight regarding their perceptions of teacher presence,
social presence, and cognitive presence in the class, as well as their experiences communicating
within the computer-mediated environment. The surveys, text-chat transcripts, and interviews
will be collected during the fall 2009 semester and will be analyzed in the three months that
follow.
Survey of Student Perceptions - Data Collection and Analysis
Survey data collection. The online survey instrument used in this study will based upon
the previously mentioned CoI survey utilized by Shea and Bidjerano (in press) to examine
learner perceptions of teaching, social, and cognitive presence within the CoI framework. As
shown in Appendix B, the adapted version which will be used in this study includes the same 37
survey items using a 5-point Likert-type scale and focuses on the learners perceptions of their
experiences within classes facilitated with synchronous CMC. The survey also includes general
information, including general learner characteristics and learners perceptions about the
synchronous computer-mediated communication, satisfaction with the course, and learning from
the course
Survey analysis. For each student, an average profile score for each category in the
survey shown in Appendix B will be calculated to produce a single score for each variable,
including the learners experiences and perceptions communicating within the synchronous
computer-mediated environment, perceived satisfaction, perceived learning, levels of
participation in the discussions, teacher presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.
Pearson bivariate correlation coefficients will be calculated to analyze the relationships among
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
21/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 21
these variables. In addition, partial correlations will be calculated to control for specific learner
characteristics, including past online course experience, computer expertise, and proficiency with
the web-conferencing interface to allow an analysis of the influence of these learner
characteristics. As noted, it is predicted that a positive correlation exists among learners
perceptions of communicating within the computer-mediated environment, satisfaction, learning,
levels of participation, cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Further, past
online course experience, computer expertise and proficiency with the web-conferencing
interface will positively affect these relationships. To evaluate statistical significance, a standard
level of p < .05 will be used.
Text-chat Content Analysis
The text-chat data collection and analysis will examine the nature of theparticipants
conversation within the parallel text-chat. Who is speaking? In what respect is the conversation
on- or off-task with the conversation in the main audio and video channel? What are the
participants saying to each other? What are the indicators of teaching, cognitive, and social
presence within the text-chat communication?
Analysis of participant text-chat transcripts. To protect the anonymity of the participants,
student login names will be replaced with a coding indicator. For this analysis, the unit of
analysis will be the message unit defined in this study as a separate text-chat post which begins
at the start of each new text-chat entry and ends at each hard return. As such, the message unit
could include partial, complete, or multiple sentences. The text-chat analysis will begin with a
comparison of the number of message units made by each individual within the session. Each
separate text-chat post will be counted as a single message unit regardless of the content. A
Pearson bivariate correlation coefficient will be calculated using the learners social and
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
22/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 22
cognitive presence scores and the number of message units to analyze the relationship between
the learners perception ofsocial and cognitive presence and their actual text-chat participation.
A positive correlation among the variables is predicted. If learners are overwhelmed by parallel
communication channels, it is expected that they will be less likely to participate and cognitive
and social presence scores will be low. Conversely, if learners find the parallel communication
channel to support cognitive and social presence, it is expected that they will participate within
the text-chat at a high level and have high levels of perceived cognitive and social presence.
Analysis of on-task / off-task / help communication . Each message unit will be
categorized based on a judgment by the raters of whether the post is on-taskor off-taskwith the
subject of the communication in the main audio-visual channel. Requests and offers of
clarification or help, including help with the interface, will be separately categorized. It is
predicted that the majority of post of this group of graduate students in a facilitated discussion
will be on-task. However, the requests and offers of help may suggest that some learners are
struggling to keep up with the communication occurring within the discussion.
Analysis of CoI indicators. The text-chat content analysis will include an analysis of
cognitive, social, and teaching presence indicators within the text-chat transcripts for each
collected live session. The present study will utilize the CoI content analysis categorization
methods described previously to examine the nature of individual text-chat posts made by both
teachers and students, as described below.
To analyze evidence of cognitive presence within the text-chat, as outlined in Appendix
C and based upon the coding scheme and mythology established by Garrison, Anderson, and
Archer (2001), a set of descriptors and indicators for each of the four phases of the practical
inquiry model embedded in the CoI framework will be used to analyze each message unit,
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
23/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 23
including whether the post includes (a) the triggering event in which an issue or problem is
identified through evocative discourse, (b) exploration in which students explore the issue
through critical reflection and inquisitive discourse, (c) integration in which learners construct
meaning from ideas formed during exploration within tentative discourse, and (d) resolution in
which learners apply the knowledge in committeddiscourse. Any message unit within the text-
chat transcript that contains such an indicator will be assigned to one of the four phases. As such,
each message unit will either exhibit or not exhibit one or more of the indicators. The relative
frequency of each of the four cognitive presence categories for each text-chat transcript will be
compared.
To analyze evidence of social presence within the text-chat, the coding scheme and
methodology established by Rourke et al. (1999) will be used as outlined in Appendix C. Any
message unit displaying either an affective, interactive, or cohesive indicator will be coded as
such based on the respective social presence category. Each message unit will either exhibit or
not exhibit one or more of the indicators. This categorization approach supports a quantitative
analysis of the overall social presence density (or average frequency of use of the indicators)
calculated as the total number of social presence indicators coded from the transcript divided by
the total number of words in the whole class transcript. This density will be calculated for each
class. In addition, as used by Swan and Shih (2005), the social presence density within each class
will be compared across two groups based on the students social presence profile score. The
social presence density of the High Social Presence group, those students with social presence
profile scores at or above the mean score for the class, and the Low Social Presence group, those
with social presence profile scores below the mean score for the class, will be compared. This
analysis will provide information on the differences in communication between students in high
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
24/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 24
and low social presence groups. As suggested in research by Swan and Shih, it is predicted that
those learners with high social presence profile scores will have relatively higher social presence
density.
To analyze evidence of teaching presence within the text-chat, the coding scheme and
methodology established by Anderson et al. (2001) will be used. As outlined in Appendix C, any
message unit posted by the teacher displaying an instructional design, discourse facilitation, or
direct instruction will be coded as such based on the respective teaching presence category. Each
message unit from the teacher will either exhibit or not exhibit one or more of the indicators. The
relative frequency of each of the teaching presence categories for each text-chat transcript will be
compared. In addition, the percentage of postings containing each teaching presence category
will be calculated by dividing the total message units containing that category with the total
number of message units by the teacher. This analysis will provide insight into the nature of the
teachers text-chat communication and can be compared to the perceived teaching presence
scores captured in the learner surveys.
Follow-up Interviews
Finally, a brief follow up interview will be conducted with a frequent text-chat participant
and an infrequent text-chat participant to gain additional insight into the students perceptions of
teacher presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in the class, as well as their
experiences communicating within the computer-mediated environment. The interview questions
will be based on the questions in the online survey and will be conducted via telephone or Skype.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
25/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 25
References
Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., et al.
(2009). A Response to the Review of the Community of Inquiry Framework. The Journal
of Distance Education, 23(2). Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/630.
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), 1-
17.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., et al.
(2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the
Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and
Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science,
27(2), 195.
Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless Laptops as Means for Promoting Active
Learning In Large Lecture Halls.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
38(3), 245-263.
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators.Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941-952.
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding.
Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 62-81.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
26/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 26
Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation
in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15,
51-65.
Community of Inquiry Survey | Community of Inquiry. (n.d.). . Retrieved July 30, 2009, from
http://communitiesofinquiry.com/methodology.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Keer, H. V. (2006). Content analysis schemes to
analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers &
Education, 46(1), 6-28.
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0-0.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-Class Laptop Use and Its Effects on Student Learning. Computers &
Education, 50(3), 906.
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.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future directions.Internet & Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online
Learning: Interaction is Not Enough.American Journal of Distance Education , 19(3),
133.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
27/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 27
Guess, A. (2008, April 18). Hey, You! Pay Attention! :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's
Source for News, Views and Jobs.Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/18/laptops.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and
Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences.International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
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.
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.
Havard, B., Jianxia Du, & Olinzock, A. (2005). DEEP LEARNING The Knowledge, Methods,
and Cognition Process in Instructor-led Online Discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 6(2), 125-135.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrinboer, J. J. (2006). Just-in-time information
presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 31(2), 167-185.
Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from
computer-based science simulations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902-913.
Marshall, C. R., & Novick, D. G. (1995). Conversational effectiveness in multimedia
communications.Information Technology & People, 8(1), 54 - 79.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
28/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 28
van Merrinboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning:
Recent Developments and Future Directions.Educational Psychology Review, 17(2),
147-177.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326.
Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential
learners perspectives in a blended graduate course.Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 6(3), 245-264.
Paulus, T. M. (2007). CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1322-1345.
Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So Far But Yet So Close: Student Chat
Room Immediacy, Learning, and Performance in an Online Course. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 395-407.
Pociask, F. D., Morrison, G., & Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
W. (2004). The Effects of Split-Attention and Redundancy on Cognitive Load When
Learning Cognitive and Psychomotor Tasks. Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.aect.org.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. D. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T. D., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing Social Presence in
Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing.Journal of Distance Education,
14(2), 50-71.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
29/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 29
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A Review of the
Literature. The Journal of Distance Education, 23(1). Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474/816.
Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. (2007). Selecting a Virtual Classroom
System:
Elluminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze (Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional).Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4). Retrieved March 22, 2009, from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no4/hilbelink.htm.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster
"epistemic engagement" and "cognitive presence" in online education. Computers &
Education, 52(3), 543-553.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T.Cognitive Presence and Online Learner Engagement: A Cluster
Analysis of the Community of Inquiry Framework.Journal of Computing in Higher
Education.
Shi, S., & Morrow, B. V. (2006). E-Conferencing for Instruction: What Works? Educause
Quarterly, 29(4), 42.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Communications.
London: John Wiley.
So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student Perceptions of Collaborative Learning, Social Presence
and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and Critical Factors.
Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
30/38
Examining Parallel Synchronous CMC 30
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the Nature and Development of Social Presence in Online
Course Discussions.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115 - 136.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition &
Instruction, 12(3), 185.
Tu, C. (2002). The Measurement of Social Presence in an Online Learning Environment.
International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Vols. 1-2, pp. Chapter 4, pp.
79-112).
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
31/38
Appendix A 31
[Personal e-mail communication removed from this copy of the proposal]
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
32/38
Appendix B 32
Modified CoI Questionnaire
Note: This questionnaire is based on the CoI survey instrument used by Shea and Bidjerano (in
press).
Instructions:This questionnaire is designed to measure your perceptions on various aspects ofthis class. There is no right or wrong answer for each question. Your participation is entirely
voluntary and will in no way affect your grade in your course. We will use the information you
provide to add to our understanding of online learning from the student perspective. All your
answers will, of course, be kept confidential. You do not have to answer any questions you do
not want to answer. However, it is important for you to respond as accurately as possible by
checking the most appropriate response. It should take you about 10-15 minutes to complete the
survey.
We are conducting this research with Professor Gary Morrison of Old Dominion University. If
you have any questions concerning your rights as a research participant that have not beenanswered by the investigator or if you wish to report any concern about the study, you may
contact Dr. George Maihafer the current IRB chair at 757-683-4520 at Old Dominion University.
By clicking the submit button at the end of the survey you confirm that you have read and
understand this section and consent to participate in the survey.
When you have finished, be sure to use the "Submit Survey" button (located at the bottom of this
form). Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Section 1: General Information
A. Name: ________________________________________B. Gender (Select): M FC. Please select the option which best describes your college affiliation and how you participate in the live
class sessions:
___ Old Dominion UniversityOn-site - Norfolk Campus
___ Old Dominion UniversityRemote SiteOther than Norfolk Campus
___ Old Dominion UniversityVideo-Stream to personal computer
___ University of Regina
D. What is your age?___ 25 or under
___ 26 - 35
___ 3645___ 4655
___ 56 or above
E. Estimate your level of overall computer expertise?
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
33/38
Appendix B 33
___ Expert
___ Above Average
___ Average
___ Below Average
___ Novice
F.
How many distance learning courses have you taken at any institution prior to this course? Please circlethe number.
0 1 2 3 4 5 More than 5
G. How proficient are you in using the conferencing interface used for live sessions in this class?___ Expert
___ Above Average
___ Average
___ Below Average
___ Novice
Please read each statement carefully and then indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement
H. Synchronous Computer-mediated CommunicationStrongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
h.1 The live conferencing format used in this
class facilitates effective whole class
discussion.
5 4 3 2 1
h.2 I was comfortable communicating with
others in the live class sessions.
5 4 3 2 1
h.3 I was able to follow along with the
conversation during live sessions.
5 4 3 2 1
h.4 I was an active participant in the livesessions.
5 4 3 2 1
h.5 The communication in the text-chat
enhanced the live discussion.
5 4 3 2 1
h.6 Based on my experience communicating in
the live sessions in this course, I would take
a course using the same live conferencing
format in the future.
5 4 3 2 1
I. Perceptions of this courseStrongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
I.1 I am satisfied with this course. 5 4 3 2 1
I.2 I am learning a great deal in this course. 5 4 3 2 1
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
34/38
Appendix B 34
Section II: Community of Inquiry
Teaching Presence
Teaching Presence: Design & Organization Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
1 The instructor clearly communicatedimportant course topics.
5 4 3 2 1
2 The instructor clearly communicated
important course goals.
5 4 3 2 1
3 The instructor provided clear instructions on
how to participate in course learning
activities.
5 4 3 2 1
4 The instructor clearly communicated
important due dates/time frames for learning
activities.
5 4 3 2 1
Teaching Presence: Facilitation Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
5 The instructor was helpful in identifyingareas of agreement and disagreement on
course topics that help me to learn.
5 4 3 2 1
6 The instructor was helpful in guiding the
class towards understanding course topics in
a way that helped me clarify my thinking.
5 4 3 2 1
7 The instructor helped to keep courseparticipants engaged and participating in
productive dialogue.
5 4 3 2 1
8 The instructor clearly communicatedimportant due dates/time frames for learning
activities.
5 4 3 2 1
9 The instructor encouraged course
participants to explore new concepts in this
course.
5 4 3 2 1
10 Instructor actions reinforced the
development of a sense of community
among course participants.
5 4 3 2 1
Teaching Presence: Direct Instruction Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
11 My instructor provided useful illustrationsthat helped make the course content more
understandable to me.
5 4 3 2 1
12 My instructor presented helpful examples
that allowed me to better understand the
content of the course.
5 4 3 2 1
13 My instructor provided explanations or 5 4 3 2 1
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
35/38
Appendix B 35
demonstrations to help me better understand
the content of the course.
14 My instructor provided feedback to the class
during the discussions or other activities to
help us learn.
5 4 3 2 1
15 My instructor asked for feedback on howthis course could be improved.
5 4 3 2 1
Social Presence
Social Presence: Affective Expression Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
16 Getting to know other course participants
gave me a sense of belonging in the course.
5 4 3 2 1
17 I was able to form distinct impressions ofsome course participants.
5 4 3 2 1
18 Online or web-based communication is an
excellent medium for social interaction.
5 4 3 2 1
19 I was able to identify with the thoughts andfeelings of other students during the course.
5 4 3 2 1
Social Presence: Open Communication Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
20 I felt comfortable conversing through theonline medium.
5 4 3 2 1
21 I felt comfortable participating in the course
discussions.
5 4 3 2 1
22 I felt comfortable interacting with other
course participants.
5 4 3 2 1
Social Presence: Group Cohesion Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
23 I felt comfortable disagreeing with othercourse participants while still maintaining a
sense of trust.
5 4 3 2 1
24 I felt that my point of view was
acknowledged by other course participants.
5 4 3 2 1
25 Online discussions help me to develop a
sense of collaboration.
5 4 3 2 1
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive Presence: Triggering Event Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
26 Problems posed increased my interest in
course issues.
5 4 3 2 1
27 Course activities pique my curiosity. 5 4 3 2 1
28 I felt motivated to explore content related
questions.
5 4 3 2 1
Cognitive Presence: Exploration Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly *
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
36/38
Appendix B 36
Agree Disagree
29 I utilized a variety of information sources to
explore problems posed in this course.
5 4 3 2 1
30 Brainstorming and finding relevant
information helped me resolve content
related questions.
5 4 3 2 1
31 Live** discussions were valuable in helpingme appreciate different perspectives. 5 4 3 2 1
Cognitive Presence: Integration StronglyAgree
Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
*
32 Combining new information helped me
answer questions raised in course activities.
5 4 3 2 1
33 Learning activities helped me construct
explanations/solutions.
5 4 3 2 1
34 Reflection on course content and discussions
helped me understand fundamental concepts
in this class.
5 4 3 2 1
Cognitive Presence: Resolution Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
*
35 I can describe ways to test and apply theknowledge created in this course.
5 4 3 2 1
36 I have developed solutions to course
problems that can be applied in practice.
5 4 3 2 1
37 I can apply the knowledge created in thiscourse to my work or other non-class related
activities.
5 4 3 2 1
* An option I choose note to answer this question is also included for all survey items
** Changed from online to live from original.
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
37/38
Appendix C 37
Coding Scheme Cognitive Presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001)
Triggering Event
(Evocative)
Exploration
(Inquisitive)
Integration
(Tentative)
Resolution
(Committed)
Recognizing the
problem
Divergence Convergence
among groupmembers
Vicarious
application toreal world
Sense of puzzlement Information exchange Convergence
within message
Testing
solutions
Suggestions for
consideration
Connecting ideas
synthesis
Defending
solutions
Brainstorming Creating solutions
Leaps to conclusion
Coding Scheme for Teaching Presence (Anderson et al., 2001)
Design and Organization Direct Instruction Facilitating Discourse
Setting curriculum Present content / questions Identifying areas of
agreement or
disagreement
Designing methods Focus the discussion on
specific issues
Seeking to reach
consensus orunderstanding
Establishing time parameters Summarize the discussion Encouraging,
acknowledging, or
reinforcing student
contributions
Utilizing medium effectively Confirm understanding through
assessment and feedback
Setting climate for
learning
Establishing netiquette Diagnose misconceptions Drawing in participants,
prompting discussion
Inject knowledge from diverse
sources
Assessing the efficacy
of the process
Respond to technical concerns
-
8/14/2019 BackChannel Research Residency Proposal 20090813 FINALx
38/38
Appendix C 38
Coding Scheme for Social Presence (Rourke et al., 1999)
Affective Interactive Cohesive
Expression of emotions Continuing a thread Vocatives: Addressing
participants by name
Use of humor Quoting from others messages Addresses or refers to
the group using
inclusive pronouns
Self-disclosure Referring explicitly to others
messages
Social greetings,
salutations
Asking questions
Complimenting, expressing,
appreciation
Expressing agreement
top related