Zehra Akyol & Randy Garrison

      Theoretical Background Research Question Methodology Results Discussion Conclusion

  ◦ Community of Inquiry Framework Cognitive Presence – Practical Inquiry Model Deep and surface learning approaches and outcomes.

Social Presence

The ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities.

Cognitive Presence

The extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry.

Teaching Presence

The design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.

 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ The Practical Inquiry Model includes four phases in describing cognitive presence in an educational context generally and online learning specifically (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).

Triggering event Exploration Integration Resolution

 Schrire (2004) found that the PI Model “to be the most relevant to the analysis of the cognitive dimension and represents a clear picture of the knowledge-building processes occurring in online discussion” (p. 491).

 Marton and Saljo (1976) studied the strategies students used to approach learning and associated these findings with the qualitative differences in learning outcomes. The researchers found two levels of student information processing which they labeled as deep and surface. ◦ When students approach learning in a deep manner, learning outcomes were qualitatively enhanced; that is, the quality of outcomes were of a higher order.  “What is learned (the outcome or the result) and how it is learned (the act or process) are two inseparable aspects of learning“ (Marton, 1988)

 ◦ ◦ Do online and blended collaborative communities of inquiry create cognitive presence that supports higher-order learning processes and outcomes?

Is cognitive presence associated with perceived learning outcomes and grades, Are there differences between online and blended design approaches in terms of the strength of cognitive presence and perceived learning outcomes and grades?

     CONTEXT Two courses on the same topic ◦ ◦ Online course -16 students Blended Course – 12 students Both courses designed to develop a community of inquiry Nine weeks of discussions Peer reviewed article critique Course redesign prototype project

  ◦ ◦ ◦ Learning Processes ◦ ◦ Transcript Analysis of Online Discussions Interviews with Students and course instructor Learning Outcomes Self report of learning Perceived Cognitive Presence (CoI Survey) Final Grades

COGNITIVE PRESENCE First 3 weeks of Discussion Online Blended Triggering Event 15 % 2 % Second 3 weeks of discussion Online Blended Last 3 weeks of discussion Online Blended 7 % 5 % 8 % 5 % TOTAL Online Blended 10 % 4 % Exploration Integration 18 % 47 % 16 % 55 % 30 % 45 % 16 % 43 % 27 % 52 % 10 % 57 % 25 % 48 % 14 % 52 % Resolution No category detected 7 % 14 % 6 % 21 % 10 % 9 % 8 % 28 % 6 % 8 % 4 % 23 % 7 % 10 % 6 % 24 % ****Exploration (p=.004) and integration (p=.004) phases were found significantly different between courses

 “ the cognitive presence was probably the best part, because the way the course was structured and designed, I felt like I was actually constructing my knowledge of blended learning as I was going through the course .” (One student’s comment)  Students’ comments about cognitive presence noted the importance of resources and learning activities in order to develop deep approaches to learning in both courses. ◦ “if you do not have the activities that are directed to push students intentionally through four phases of inquiry model, learning does not happen ”. (Course Instructor)

Online Course Blended Course Significance Perceived Cognitive Presence

4.07

4.31

p=.209

Perceived Learning Satisfaction

4.20

4.58

p=.154

4.47

4.75

p=.207

Student’s final grades

Online course Blended Course N 16 12 Mean 94.22

93.83

Students indicated that they could learn in the course during the interviews.

Cognitive Presence

Online Course

Perceived Learning Satisfaction .67

p=.007 .65

p=.009

Blended Course

Perceived Learning Satisfaction .81

p=.001 .64

p=.024

   Why the resolution phase has the least activity in both learning environments?

Why integration phase is significantly higher in the blended course?

Are the processes described by the PI Model associated with actual higher-order learning outcomes and proxy measures such as perceived learning?



There is a strong relationship between collaborative constructivism and higher-order learning outcomes.

◦ ◦ Course Design basing on CoI approach was successful in both course leading to high levels of cognitive presence, perceived learning and learning outcomes.

The blended format creates better conditions for critical inquiry and increases the perceptions of presences, satisfaction and learning.