At the start of OLTD 503, I felt comfortable in my philosophy of online education. I've been teaching online for a number of years, and I've been involved in spirals of inquiry investigating building community in an online classroom and how to increase student results and student satisfaction.

Based on the readings and research, I finally had some names for what I had already believed in - Social Constructivism and a Community of Inquiry (COI) approach to education - and I was able to refine and build upon my prior understandings.

The development of the three central elements of the Community of Inquiry approach (social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence) can allow for rich and meaningful learning experiences (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). The challenge I now envision for my practice is to robustly develop these “presences” in my online classroom. Joksimovic (2015) states that “design that increased meaningful interactions between students had a significant impact on the development of social presence,” which in turn results in improved academic performance. Naturally I want my students to all be successful, and this emphasis on the importance of social presence and building community elucidated for me the need to put time and effort into tools that allow this, rather than focusing solely on content and concept attainment.

I have wanted to develop social presence for several years, but until now, I didn’t have a name for it, and the experiences in 503 have given me a toolkit that I can immediately put into use in my practice. Furthermore, I now have a better understanding of how to develop online teaching presence, which Joksimovic (2015) says is, “conceptualized through instructional design, facilitation, [and] direct instruction.” Previously I had been great at developing teaching presence face-to-face (charisma!), I always spent time building community, and I love curriculum design, so delving into the puzzle of cognitive presence really engages me. Now I have a framework that will put me on the right track to crossing the chasm between educational theory and practice.

Social Constructivists believe that learners should construct their own knowledge, rather than accept what their instructors tell them (Ally, 2008). In this course, we all participated in this through experiential learning and the challenge of leading our own online seminar. The COI espouses open communication, critical reflection, and discourse, all of which was also central to the 503 course design. We were able to build cohesion within our community through a number of engaging collaborative learning activities, in addition to the less formal, more social format of the Google+ platform that housed most of our interactions as a cohort.

We saw wonderful examples of successful course design in the individual seminars weeks, using different platforms and regularly using elements of the Universal Design for Learning, such as separating information into manageable chunks and having clear connections to learning outcomes.

In terms of the Community of Inquiry and theories that we observed in action, all of our work moved towards a resolution. When we were working in teams and small groups, we had clearly defined goals and we strived to achieve them. Furthermore, we observed the theory of Transactional Distance in action. Transactional distance looks at the interaction of different “agents” in the online classroom. The “distance” being described is between both learner-instructor and learner-content. There are three dimensions of Transactional Distance: structure, dialogue, and autonomy. These theorists state that one of these dimensions needs to be high in order for deep learning to occur, and perfectly suiting a course on “online communication”, dialogue was fundamental to almost all learning that occurred for me in 503. Structure was loose, and autonomy was reasonably high, but I would state definitively that the dialogue within our cohort and our small groups exploded, and was crucial for my learning.

In “The Five Stage Model”, Salmon (2003) describes a structure that can create greater interaction and participation in online classes. She talks about “e-tivities” and designing coursework so that learners make sense of the materials through interaction with peers and e-moderators. In 503, I learned how effective this can be, as we worked as a cohort and in small groups to master the concepts of online communication and community building.

As a group, our cohort really started to blossom during 503. We experienced Salmon’s fourth stage - working toward a group goal, and even progressed into the fifth - looking for benefits from the system to help achieve personal goals through reflection and critique. Personally, once I started to feel a genuine comfort with the group, I started wondering more what the coursework could do for me and my practice, and targeting my reflections and critiques towards a more personal experience. I felt excited to participate and comment on posts, not for “points”, but because I wanted the group learning to be stronger and I was socially interested in the outcomes.

Philosophically, this is my classroom dream. I love when my students engage because they’re curious and interested, rather than because they are receiving marks. This hook into internal motivation is the holy grail of teaching, and developing robust social presence is an important element. A quote from Garrison and Anderson sums up another important factor of my teaching philosophy that I was able to observe in 503: “Social presence does not mean supporting a ‘pathological politeness’ where students will not be sceptical or critical of ideas for fear that they might hurt someone’s feelings” (2003). I strive for critical thought with my classes, and I want them to feel comfortable to disagree with me. I started to experience this in 503 in about week three, and it was an unexpected delight that I stopped worrying about potentially offending someone and started picking ideas apart to get to the most crucial and important parts.

Lowenthal and Parscal (2008) tell us that in online teaching there is a fine line between being a “guide on the side” and being absent. As both a classroom teacher and a DL teacher, I feel strongly that detailed feedback needs to be provided for students in a timely manner. Online, I try to respond in a way that allows the students to take their learning further, while also attempting to respond within a day of their work being submitted. In accordance with Lowenthal and Parscal, the central focus of my teaching is to increase social presence and student learning. I have cherished the examples, experiences, and tools gained in 503, as they are giving me ideas I can immediately start using in my practice.

Speaking of immediacy, teaching immediacy is a predictor of teacher effectiveness (Lowenthal and Parscal, 2008). I take this to mean that as an online instructor, I need to be “present” for my students through a number of different means, and that whenever possible, my students should not feel isolated or distanced from me. I will also strive to include more visuals, more synchronous chat, and an introductory video in my classes, as this can be a tremendous help to increase immediacy.

This element of the Community of Inquiry framework is where I have experienced the most growth. I consider myself to be fairly computer savvy, but I am not overly knowledgeable when it comes to different products and applications. OLTD 503 gave me exposure to a number of great products that I have already started using with my students. I loved learning about different programs I can use to increase social and teaching presence, and the course readings were generally practical and easy for me to connect to my own practice.

For example. Kear (2010) suggests we search for ways to decrease the amount of text in our courses and increase the visuals. One way I’m using this today is to allow my students to use programs such as Piktochart, Haiku Deck, Easel.ly, and Google Slides to present their information rather than insisting on another essay. I haven’t been able to incorporate many collaborative applications into my courses, as they’re asynchronous, but I would like to experiment with Wikis, Padlet, and the richly visual Flipgrid.

Acting as an online facilitator was a comfortable place for me, and OLTD helped me see the different ways I can encourage learners. I use Moodle in my daily practice, and though the program is incredibly rich, it has limitations as well. I found the Google+ platform user friendly and it made commenting on posts and providing feedback during my seminar week easy and less time consuming than in my regular LMS. I loved the social aspect of the week, and really enjoyed the products that my cohort peers produced.

This moderator experience also cemented the need to clearly outline expectations for learners. I was a little disappointed to see that not all participants met all of the outcomes that my group had planned for the week, and I suspect is is due to the fact that we hadn’t included a rubric. I also felt hesitant to point out the aspects that were missing, probably because we’re peers, and I don’t see myself as the “sage on the stage.”

I was incredibly inspired by the week I spent moderating, and the week beforehand when I did collaborative planning with my seminar group. I have adapted the activities we used for my own students, and it was wonderful to bounce ideas off each other rather than the typical experience of trying to plan in isolation. This, of course, ties into the Social Constructivist learning theory, and fits nicely with my philosophy of education. The main difference is that I tend not to think of myself as a “learner” when I’m planning, though of course I am. This perspective will change how I plan for my students in the future, as I will be sure to think of myself as part of the learning process.

Critical Reflection is crucial for the construction of meaning. Before I started working on this final assignment, I found OLTD 503 to be a little disjointed. We were experiencing the different teaching styles of 20 teachers, and the overarching themes weren’t always clear. I couldn’t always connect the learning activities to the intended learning outcomes.

However, through the process of reflecting upon my experience, I was able to draw conclusions about the importance of different activities and to make necessary connections within my own understanding. I see now that the entire course was experiential learning, and that the development of our cohort as a cohesive social group was as large a learning outcome as any of the theories to be drawn from recommended readings.

I’m happy to have a toolkit I can carry over to my classes, and I’m glad to feel trust and comfort with my cohort, which provides me with 19 valuable resources, not only for the duration of the OLTD program, but in my teaching practice as well. I’m especially glad to have turned a corner in my own motivation. Instead of worrying about grades or points, I’m now primarily motivated by my own learning, and what I can connect to my context.

References

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 15-44). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Butler, J., & Evans, M. (2014). Rules of engagement: Setting the stage for online learning communities. In J. C. Richardson, C. S. York & P. R. Lowenthal (Eds.), Online learning : Common misconceptions and benefits and challenges (pp. 73-89). Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.viu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.viu.ca/...

Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000) Critical Inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st Century, Routledge-Falmer, Abingdon, UK & New York.

Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654. doi:10.1111/jcal.12107

Kear, K. (2010). Social presence in online learning communities. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, 3-4 May 2010, Aalborg, Denmark.

Lowenthal, P., & Parscal, T. (2008). Teaching presence online facilitates meaningful learning. The learning curve, 3(4), 1,2,4.

Salmon, G. (2003). The five stage model. Retrieved from http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html