Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2008 Teaching presence: a focus on the instructor's role in online collaborative learning Keisha Smith Dubuclet Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, kas5162@yahoo.com Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Dubuclet, Keisha Smith, "Teaching presence: a focus on the instructor's role in online collaborative learning" (2008). LSU Doctoral Dissertations.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2108 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contactgradetd@lsu.
TEACHING PRESENCE: A FOCUS ON THE INSTRUCTOR’S ROLE IN ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Educational Theory, Policy, and Practice by Keisha Smith Dubuclet B., Xavier University of Louisiana, 1999 M., University of Southern Mississippi, 2002 December, 2008 DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, George Dubuclet, III, and my son, George Dubuclet, IV. George, I’ve been in school since the day we met. School has been there through our wedding, through the birth of our child, and through moving to two different states. Through all of this and more, you have always supported me.
This is it – for now. To Lil George – thank you for understanding that “mommy’s working.” You’ve been studying with me since before you were born. Now, I look forward to being able to study with you. I also want to dedicate this dissertation to the city I love, the City of New Orleans.
The one thing that this journey has taught me is that with determination and perseverance, anything can be accomplished. I know that one day you will again be the great city I know you are and the great city you were always meant to be. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want to thank my committee members for being so patient and supportive. Thank you Dr.
Lou for all of your support to make this possible. You have always made yourself available and had open and constant communication with me despite me being so far away. I also want to thank Louisiana Virtual High School (LVS), including Allen Grant, Ken Brafford, Janet Broussard, and Cathy Rankin. Thanks for making this possible.
A special thanks to Cathy Rankin for opening your classes to me, and for welcoming the scrutinous eyes of research. You have been a joy to work with, and I hope that this research can help you as much as you’ve helped me. Much appreciation to all the people that have supported me throughout this journey. Thank you to all of my babysitters – Theresa, Ta, and my in-laws, Pamela and George Dubuclet, Jr.
A special thanks to my parents, Hartnett and Rolanda Smith. Driving an hour every week to watch Lil George while I went to class gives an entirely new definition to the word “support”. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION. ……iii LIST OF TABLES.vii LIST OF FIGURES.
ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .1 Purpose of the Study. 9 Significance of the Study. 10 Limitations of the Study. 12 Definition of Terms.
13 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. ……14 Virtual High Schools. 15 Online Collaborative Learning. 17 Asynchronous Electronic Learning.
20 Online Learning Community. 21 Community of Inquiry. 23 Barriers to Student Participation in Online Learning Communities. 25 Instructor’s Role in Online Discussion.
26 Teaching Strategies that Influence Student Engagement in Online Discussion. 28 Design Strategies in Online Discussions. 29 Facilitative Strategies in Online Discussions. 32 Summary and Discussion.
40 Context and Participants. 51 Final Course Grades. 55 Observation and Course Documents. 56 iv Discussion Analysis Tools.
66 CHAPTER 4: WITHIN-CASE RESULTS. 70 Student Participation in Discussion Boards. 70 Student Learning in Discussion Boards. 75 Depth of Dialogue.
76 Students’ Reported Satisfaction with the Course. 82 Student Participation in Discussion Boards. 82 Student Learning in Discussion Boards. 88 Depth of Dialogue.
90 Students’ Reported Satisfaction with the Course. 95 Student Participation in Discussion Boards. 95 Student Learning in Discussion Boards. 100 Depth of Dialogue.
103 Students’ Reported Satisfaction with the Course. 105 CHAPTER 5: CROSS-CASE RESULTS.108 Factors That Exhibited No Pattern of a Relationship. 111 Patterns Associated with Discussion Board Participation. 111 Relationship between Discussion Board Participation and Participation Requirements.
111 Relationship between Discussion Board Participation and Question Design. 112 Relationship between Discussion Board Participation and Depth of Dialogue. 114 Patterns Associated with Question Design. 115 Relationship between Question Design and Depth of Dialogue.
115 Relationship between Cognitive Skill Prompted by Question and Cognitive Skill Displayed by Students. 119 Relationship between Cognitive Skill and Depth of Dialogue. 120 Relationship between Discussion Board Participation and Student Achievement. 121 Student Satisfaction Survey.
123 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. 128 The Impact of Teacher Facilitation. 129 Impact of Participation Requirements. 131 Impact of Increased Student Participation.
133 Impact of Question Design. 134 Other Related Factors. 136 Implications for Practice. 139 v Require Students to Participate.
140 Purposefully Design Discussion Topics. 141 Grade the Quality of Dialogue. 141 Create More Opportunities for Students to Express Differing Opinions. 142 Allow Time for Discussions to Develop.
142 Determine the Purpose of Discussions. 143 Recommendations for Further Research.147 APPENDIX A: DISTANCE LEARNING INTERACTIVITY RUBRIC .160 APPENDIX B: IRB APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION .162 APPENDIX C: CHILD ASSENT FORM .163 APPENDIX D: PARENTAL CONSENT FORM .164 APPENDIX E: TEACHER CONSENT FORM .166 APPENDIX F: ORIGINAL SURVEY .168 APPENDIX G: REVISED SURVEY.170 APPENDIX H: TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.174 APPENDIX I: ORIGINAL DISCUSSION ANALYSIS TOOL .175 APPENDIX J: SURVEY RESULTS – COMPUTER SCIENCE .176 APPENDIX K: SURVEY RESULTS – ADVANCED MATH .180 APPENDIX L: SURVEY RESULTS – C++ PROGRAMMING .188 vi LIST OF TABLES 3.2 Sequence of Study.3 Examples of Student Satisfaction Survey Questions .4 Course Grading Scale .5 Student Discussion Post Coding Scheme .6 Instructor Discussion Post Coding Scheme .1 Participation in Discussion Board – Computer Science .2 Summary of Strategies by Discussion Participation – Computer Science.3 Summary of Strategies by Cognitive Skill – Computer Science .4 Participation in Discussion Board – Advanced Math .5 Summary of Strategies by Discussion Participation – Advanced Math .6 Summary of Strategies by Cognitive Skill – Advanced Math.7 Participation in Discussion Board – C++ .8 Summary of Strategies by Discussion Participation – C++.9 Summary of Strategies by Cognitive Skill – C++ .1 Summary of High-Participation Discussions of All Three Classes .2 Summary of Low-Participation Discussions of All Three Classes.3 Summary of Student Learning Based on Cognitive Skill Prompted by Question.4 Correlation of Discussion Board Participation and Achievement .5 Correlation between Satisfaction with each Interaction and Overall Satisfaction.6 Multiple Regression of Four Interaction Constructs and General Satisfaction .7 Stepwise Regression of Student Interaction Variables .8 Hierarchical Regression Model. 126 vii LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Model for a Constructivist Learning Environment.2 The Relationship between Interactivity and Presence in Online Learning. 25 viii ABSTRACT The use of e-learning has been extended beyond simply providing access to information to providing the ability to learn collaboratively via an interactive learning environment.
The ability to create an online collaborative and interactive environment is a challenge. This study strove to examine the most effective design and facilitative strategies for fostering student learning and participation in hopes to make design and implementation of online discussions easier and more efficient for teachers. The primary goal of this study was to understand how the degree of instructor presence influenced students’ perception of learning and how students engaged in deeper levels of learning in an online collaborative learning environment. More specifically, the study explored the relationship between design and facilitative strategies in online discussions and student participation, student learning, and students’ perceptions of their online learning experience.
An embedded, multiple-case study design was used. Three completely online classes taught by the same instructor were chosen for this study (n = 55). During the Fall 2007 semester, data were collected from observations, discussion transcripts, teacher interviews, student surveys and student grades. Quantitative data included student responses on a perception survey, final course grades, and the frequency of discussion posts.
Qualitative data included on-going observations, on-going teacher interviews, open-ended questions on a student perception survey, and discussion transcripts. Results showed that the teacher’s role in online discussions is influential to student participation and learning. More specifically, certain strategies such as participation requirements and question design were related to an increase in participation and learning. Factors such as addressing students by name, providing immediate feedback, providing on-going ix communication, and providing individual attention may have also contributed to student learning.
The findings of this research are consistent with that of previous studies. Consequently, they add merit to the importance of teacher presence in online learning, particularly in the areas of course structure and question design. Implications for practice are discussed. x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The traditional profile of students in higher education has changed.
There are more adult learners than ever, most of which are working adults continuing their education to meet the demands of a changing workforce (Jorgensen, 2002; Ying, Fuzong & Wang, 2003). A combination of mature learners and a constantly changing workforce has resulted in students who desire preparation for real-world situations in their professional work environments. Learners need to be able to solve problems and develop critical thinking skills (Teles & Rylands, 1998; Jorgensen, 2002). However, it is naïve to think that higher education today consists of learners dedicated to engaging in higher-order learning.
“There is far more rhetoric than reality in the assertion that communities of inquiry in higher education today encourage students to approach learning in a critical manner and process information in a deep and meaningful way” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. Students need to receive the educational experiences to develop the skills they need for lifelong learning. Students should enter higher education with the desire and ability to engage in higher-order learning. Such skills can be indoctrinated prior to entering higher education.
Online learning has been a highly desired method for learning among adults due to the time and space convenience that it offers compared to that of face-to-face learning. For this same reason, online learning has become widely used in secondary education. Many states have implemented online high schools (may also be known as virtual high schools) to provide all students equal access to educational opportunities. Online learning extends beyond time and space boundaries caused by factors such as schedule conflicts, rural residences and students being homebound due to extenuating circumstances.
1 Although online learning has become a widely used form of providing and receiving education, its effectiveness continues to be questioned (Jorgensen, 2002). Many online courses are designed based on the traditional knowledge acquisition model and conducted no differently than traditional classes (Lou, 2004; Ying, Fuzong & Xue, 2003). There is very little emphasis on engaging students in solving complex real-world problems (Lou, 2004). Learning collaboratively is thought to promote problem-solving skills (Teles & Rylands, 1998).
Collaborative learning is consistent with constructivist learning theory (Fung, 2004). It is a process whereby learners interact with and participate in a community of learning and practice to construct their own knowledge and develop skills by observing others, learning from others and negotiating meaning with others. It is the active reconstruction of a learner’s knowledge and ideas through peer-to-peer dialogues, commenting, discussing, sharing and reconceptualizing (Southard, 1999). It is characterized by shared knowledge resulting from a mutual engagement of participants in learning (McInnerney, 2004).
Collaborative learning may encompass many different learning strategies. These strategies include group discussions, problem-based learning, role-playing activities and group projects. Collaborative learning seems to emphasize the construction of one’s own knowledge via interaction with other students. It is a student-centered approach that allows for more student autonomy.