Community of Inquiry

I was captivated by the article The Development of a Community of Inquiry Over Time in an Online Course: Understanding the Progression and Integration of Social, Cognitive and Teaching Presence (Akyol & Garrison, 2008), and so was looking forward to the presentation by Dr. Garrison. My interest stems from my professional role, rather than from my proposed research focus.

Blended learning models and on-line learning are new to me, both as a teacher and a learner. In March I started in a new role as Program Head, for the Master in Disaster and Emergency Management Program at Royal Roads University. It was important for me, in my new role, to get a sense of learner satisfaction, course feedback and perception of faculty. At the same time we were reviewing the number of credits in the program, and re-considering the benefit of the practicum. I read Dr. Garrison's article not too long after I had reviewed the course surveys, and found the study on the relationship between social, cognitive and teaching presence intriguing, especially the relationship between these elements and learner satisfaction and perception of learning. I read the article before arriving on campus, and it has influenced some of my decisions on how to proceed, in the short term at least, with our practicum course. I'll share how and why this article influenced my thinking.

The course survey questions we ask are both standard questions with a rating scale, as well as open ended questions. There was significant learner dissatisfaction with the practicum course, though it was a positive experience for some. I was able to interpret the learner comments and ratings through the lens of social, cognitive and teacher presence. I will address each one, but will start with an explanation of the practicum course site. The site is used more as a shell, than an instructional platform. Learners engage in a 60 hour practicum of their choosing, however they were not allowed to undertake a project that was within their current job responsibilities (in emergency or disaster management). The site contained a practicum handbook and other reference documents that they would need for the course. Learners need to submit a proposal, a mid-term report and a final report. My interpretation of the learner feedback, using the element, categories and indicators, as described in the article, is as follows.

Teaching presence:
Learners had generally low ratings of course satisfaction and of the instructor. After reading the article I came to a new understanding of the learner feedback and now believe that the categories of design and organization are central problems with the course, which in turn affected the other elements of social and cognitive presence. The course site functions as a shell, with little to no teaching presence. Learners work independently on their practicum project, and receive direct feedback from the instructor on their proposal, mid-term and final reports.

Cognitive presence:
While learners posed some questions online, they were usually referred back to the course documents for their answers. Because the course and use of the site was designed this way, there was little facilitation of discourse or direct instruction. Learners noted this and were dissatisfied. The other online course have a high level of online engagement and instructor facilitation, and likely creating a further contrast and comparison for learners. While there were many individual learning points, these were not shared, and hence the cognitive engagement was not in anyway supported through dialogue on the site. Learners were introduced to a new model, results based planning, and had difficulty understanding the concepts and were frustrated as a result. I beleive that if there had been more teaching presence, there would have been greater cognitive presence and greater learner satisfaction.

Social presence:
The program uses a cohort model, and so the learners were also taking other online courses, and had attended an initial 3 week residency where they formed strong bonds. Many learners described the residency experience as transformative. Give that the practicum site was used as a shell, that there was little or no group faciliation or instruction, social presence was low. One learner commented that it was a lonely site.

Have read the article, I came to understand the importance of, and relationship between, teaching presence, cognitive presence and social presence, and the importance of each aspect. I'll be teaching this practicum for the first time this fall, and will be making changes first to the design, learners will be able to do their practicum at their place of work, and as part of their job responsibilities (it is an applied Master's program), and the site will be a faciltiated learning site, just as any other site. The nature of the facilitation will differ, however teaching presence is important.

The future of the practicum and its value is another matter, and in that regard, during one of our library sessions I did a quick search on practicums and found a great article entitled The Purpose, Value and Structure of the Practicum in Higher Education: A Literature Review (Ryan, Toohey & Hughes, 1996), which provides a framework for considering the practicum overall.

I am now intrigued to go back and review the all of the learner survey results again. I am interested in determining which of the questions we ask align with teaching, cognitive and social presence, and what the relationship is between these categories and the survey results. The model will be helpful to me as I work with course faculty in the review and interpretation of survey results, and in future course design.

My question in class was about how with a cohort model, the results might change as learners progress through the program.

I now want to read the books that Dr. Garrison has authored and to learn more about the community of inquiry model.