Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 34–61 | Cite as

The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry

  • Arthur Bangert
Article

Abstract

THIS STUDY EXPLORED the use of Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's (2000) version of Dewey's (1933) practical inquiry model for assessing the influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of critical inquiry experienced by online learners. Students (N=33) enrolled in an online version of a graduate-level, educational statistics course were randomly assigned to either a control, social presence, or social presence combined with teaching presence experimental discussion group. Results showed that the social presence combined with teaching presence group posted significantly more responses at the highest levels of cognitive presence than either the control or the social presence discussion groups.

Keywords

assessing online inquiry cognitive presence computer-mediated conferencing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2005).Growing by degrees. Online education in the United States. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from the Sloan Corporation site: http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/growing_by_degrees.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997).Learner-centered principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73–85Google Scholar
  4. Arbaugh, J.B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses?Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, J. (2003, September). Instructor immediacy increases student enjoyment, perceptions of learning.Online Classroom. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from https:// www.ucalgary.ca/∼commons/oc/0309OC.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Bangert, A.W. (2006). The development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness.The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrows, H.S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnett, C., Wildemuth, B.M., & Sonnerwald, D.H. (2006). Interactivity between protégés and scientists in an electronic mentoring program.Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 34, 21–61.Google Scholar
  9. Bronack, S., Reidl, R., & Tashner, J. (2006). Learning in the zone: A constructivist framework for distance education in a 3-dimensional virtual world.Interactive Learning Environments, 14(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd. ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Cross, P.K. (1999).Learning about making connections: The Cross papers number 3. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College and Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  13. Curtis, D.D., & Lawson, M.J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 21–34.Google Scholar
  14. Derry, S.J., Levin, J.R., Osana, H.P., Jones, M.S., & Peterson, M. (2000). Fostering students' statistical and scientific thinking: Lessons learned from an innovative college course.American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 743–773.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1933).How we think. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  16. Duffy, T.M., Dueber, B., Hawley, C.L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.),Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Dunn, S. (2000). The virtualization of education.The futurist, 34(2), 34–38.Google Scholar
  18. Fahey, P.J. (2005). Two methods for assessing critical thinking in computer-mediated communications (CMC) transcripts.International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved May 21st, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_05/article02.htmGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003).E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2000).A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61–74.Google Scholar
  25. Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction model for examining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.Google Scholar
  26. Gunawardena, N.C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment.American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3). 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hacker, D.J., & Niederhauser, D.S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henri, F. (1992) Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.),Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, S.D., & Aragon, S.R. (2003, Winter). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 31–34.Google Scholar
  30. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
  31. 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), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lampert, M.D., & Ervin-Trip, S.M. (1993). Structured coding for the study of language and social interaction. In J.A. Edwards & M.D. Lampert (Eds.).Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Levine, B.B., He, Y., & Robbins, H.H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers' reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439–460.Google Scholar
  34. Macknight, C.B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions.Educause Quarterly, 23, 38–41.Google Scholar
  35. Major, C.H., & Palmer, B. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning in higher education: Lessons from the literature.Academic Exchange Quarterly, 51(1), 4–9.Google Scholar
  36. McCombs, B.L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning.Teachers College Record, 107, 1582–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, J.L., & Marra, R.M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191–212.Google Scholar
  38. Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005).How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Picciano, A.G. (2003). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.Google Scholar
  41. Rose, M.A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative.American Journal of Distance Education, 18, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shea, P.J. (2006). A study of students' sense of learning community in an online learning environment.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35–44.Google Scholar
  44. Shea, P.J., Fredericksen, E.E., Pickett, A.M., & Pelz, W.E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds.).Elements of quality online education: Practice direction (Vol. 4, pp. 279–312). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
  45. Shea, P.J., Pickett, A.M., & Pelz, W.E. (2004). Enhancing student satisfaction through faculty development: The importance of teaching presence. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds.).Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (Vol. 5, pp. 39–59). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
  46. Swan, K., & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.Google Scholar
  47. Triola, M. (2007).Elementary statistics (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  48. Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2003). Designs, management tactics, and strategies in asynchronous learning discussions.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 303–315.Google Scholar
  49. Vaughn, D., & Garrison, R.D. (2005). Creating cognitive presence is a blended faculty development community.Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur Bangert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationMontana State UniversityBozeman

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options