Transcript Presentation Title

Transfer of teaching presence between classroom
and online MBA learning environments
John E. Wisneski, Doctoral Student, IST Department
Dr. Gamze Ozogul, Assistant Professor, IST Department
Dr. Ray K. Haynes, Assistant Professor, IST Department
Problem Statement
• In 2013, more than 7 million students enrolled in online courses in the U.S.
• Yet 58% of the 4,564 participating faculty members at institutions of higher
education in the U.S. indicated the growth of online learning at their
institution filled them with ‘more fear than excitement’.
• Despite this skepticism among faculty, two-thirds of the 591 chief
academic officers surveyed described online learning as a critical
component of their institutions’ long-term strategy.
• As recently as 2010, however, nearly 20% of institutions did not provide
any training (not even informal mentoring) for faculty teaching online.
• Due to this lack of training, faculty members are required to apply their
own teaching practices from the classroom in the online environment.
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education, 2012. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Purpose of Study
To explore an instructor’s ability to transfer teaching practices between
learning environments
The findings of this study are intended to help instructors better anticipate
the challenges in adapting teaching presence across multiple learning
environments, and may serve as a basis for helping administrators prioritize
specific training opportunities to assist in the preparation of online
instructors.
Defining Teaching Presence
Perhaps the most widely accepted definition of teaching presence comes
from the work of Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000), via the Community
of Inquiry (CoI) framework.
the means by which students are
engaged in interaction related to
building knowledge from the course
instructional materials
the intellectual and scholarly
leadership of the instructor
based on their subject matter
expertise
the planning and design of the
structure, process, interaction,
and evaluation of the course
Garrison, D., 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.
Defining Type of Transfer Activities
• Routine Transfer: “learn-it-here, apply-it-there”
• Adaptive Transfer: adapting and revising prior knowledge in the
context of the transfer
• Backward Transfer: refers to the phenomenon where dealing with the
new situation may in fact lead to revisions in a prior conception
• Best Practice Transfer: refers to the application of a relevant
organizational exemplar that produces results better than any known
alternative
Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232-247.
Perkins, David N., & Salomon, Gavriel. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248-258.
Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C.C. & Bransford, J.D. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating previously successful routines with needs for new learning.
Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204-214.
Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky knowledge: barriers to knowing in the firm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
.
Research Questions
1.
Do instructors’ teaching presence levels differ across classroom and
online learning environments?
2.
Are the practices that lead to teaching presence transferred between
classroom and online learning environments?
3.
Is there a relationship between instructors’ transfer activities and
their beliefs regarding the successful implementation of teaching
practices online or in the classroom?
Research Design
In seeking to develop a more complete understanding of teaching
presence and its transferability across learning environment, a convergent
parallel design was chosen.
Participants
•
6 instructors from the Kelley School of Business teaching online and face-to-face
Instructor Discipline
Online
Classroom
simultaneously
Participants
Participation Rate Participants Participation Rate
Economics
9
.45
51
.25
• 153 online students
Finance
11
.16
12
.16
• 167 face-to-face students Finance
28
.33
15
.30
Management
Marketing
Marketing
Totals
Survey Instruments
• Instructor Teaching Presence Transfer Survey
• Student Teaching Presence Scale
34
46
25
.55
.63
.42
32
46
11
.36
.31
.23
153
.37
167
.28
Online Repository Review
• Direct Messaging & Forum Discussions
• Lessons (lecture and recorded asynchronous chat sessions)
Classroom Observations
Preliminary Findings
•
Statistically significant variance was found across all elements of Teaching
presence between face-to-face and online courses
ID
FD
DI
TP
Instructor
Economics
Marketing 1
Marketing 2
Management
Finance 1
Finance 2
F2F
4.21
4.02
4.39
3.79
3.65
3.70
Online
4.46
4.05
4.62
4.43
3.68
4.42
F2F
4.21
3.94
4.34
3.91
3.65
3.47
Online
4.46
4.02
4.70
4.22
3.09
4.33
F2F
4.22
3.73
4.16
3.81
3.90
3.45
Online
4.40
4.13
4.66
4.17
3.22
4.29
F2F
4.21
3.90
4.30
3.84
3.73
3.55
Online
4.44
4.06
4.69
4.27
3.37
4.35
Overall
Marketing
Finance
4.08
4.32
3.68
4.37
4.42
4.21
4.06
4.26
3.55
4.28
4.46
3.98
4.00
4.07
3.65
4.28
4.47
3.99
4.05
4.23
3.63
4.31
4.45
4.07
Sig @ .05
Sig @ .01
•
•
•
3 of the 6 instructors who participated were able to achieve similar Teaching
Presence in both environments.
Facilitating Discourse appeared to be the easiest to achieve in both
environments, while Direct Instruction seems to be the hardest to recreate.
5 of the 6 instructors measured higher levels of Teaching Presence online.
Limitations
•
Limited sample of size of instructor participants (n=6).
•
Factor analysis of TPS revealed the survey instrument loaded on only 2
constructs (Instructional Design and Facilitated Instruction) instead of all 3
elements of Teaching Presence.
Implications and Further Research
•
Training interventions for instructors new to the online environment should
include consideration for the transfer of new teaching skills obtained in the
online environment back in the classroom.
•
Administrators should consider more than just subject matter expertise when
making faculty assignments.
•
Administrators should consider building repositories of best practices for
teaching skills based on exemplar performers in each learning environment.
•
Further efforts to identify the specific skills that cannot be recreated across
learning environments may lead to more focused instructor training
opportunities.
References
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States, 2013. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education, 2012. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA Courses. Journal of Management Education,
24(1), 32-54.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an
asynchronous internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213-233.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the online classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. The Journal
of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2004). Learning to learn online: A study of perceptual changes between multiple online course experiences. The Internet and Higher
Education, 7, 169-182.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 135-149.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). How much does “subject matter” matter? A study of disciplinary effects in on-line MBA courses. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 4(1), 57-73.
Arbaugh, J. B. & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 435-447.
Arbaugh, J. B. & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9-21.
Arbaugh, J. B. & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decision Support Systems, 43, 853-865.
Arbaugh, J. B. & Rau, B.L. (2007). A study of disciplinary, structural, and behavioral effects on course outcomes in online MBA courses. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 65-95.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-21.
References
Arbaugh, J. B., Godfrey M.R., Johnson, M., Pollack, B., Niendorf, B. & Wresch, W. (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business
disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 71-87.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55, 12341244.
Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study.
Internet and Higher Education, 13, 37-44.
Baker, C. (2010). The Impact of Instructor Immediacy and Presence for Online Student Affective Learning, Cognition, and Motivation. Journal of Educators
Online, 7(1).
Bangert, A.W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 104-111.
Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: Profile of students in an online MBA program and implications for teaching
them. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 245-253.
Briggs, S. (2005). Changing roles and competencies of academics. Active learning in higher education, 6(3), 256-268.
Brownstein, B., Brownstein, D. & Gerlowski, D. (2008). Web-based vs. face-to-face MBA classes: A comparative study. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning, 5(11), 41-48.
Edwards, M., Perry, B., & Janzen, K. (2011). The making of an exemplary online educator. Distance Education, 32(1), 101-118.
Garrison, D., 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.
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
11(1), 61-72.
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.
Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 49(1), 65-72.
References
Hodges, C. B., & Cowan, S. (2012). Preservice teachers' views of instructor presence in online courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
28(4), 139-145.
Lee, S., Lee, J., Liu, X., Bonk, C.J. & Magjuka, R.J. (2009). A review of case-based learning practices in an online MBA program: A program-level case
study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 178-190.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J. & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning
communities in online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.
Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S. & Magjuka, R.J. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning: International student perceptions. Educational Technology & Society,
13(3), 177-188.
Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232247.
Mandernach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett, A. L. (2006). An examination of online instructor presence via threaded discussion participation. Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 2(4), 248-260.
Morgan, T. (2011). Online classroom or community-in-the-making? Instructor conceptualizations and teaching presence in international online contexts.
Journal of Distance Education, 25(1), 1-13.
Mujtaba, B. (2007). Understanding the needs and wants of virtual students: Online MBA program at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and
Entrepreneurship of Nova Southeastern University. TechTrends, 51(6), 46-51.
Nagel, L., & Kotze, T. G. (2010). Supersizing E-Learning: What a CoI Survey Reveals about Teaching Presence in a Large Online Class. Internet and
Higher Education, 13(1-2), 45-51.
Pelz, B. (2004). Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(3), 33-46.
Perkins, David N., & Salomon, Gavriel. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248258.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous
learning networks, 6(1), 21-40.
References
Proserpio, L. & Gioia, D. (2007). Teaching the virtual generation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 69-80.
Rossin, D., Ro, Y. K., Klein, B. D., & Yi Maggie, G. (2009). The Effects of Flow on Learning Outcomes in an Online Information Management Course.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(1), 87-98.
Rydzewski, D.N., Eastman, J.K. & Bocchi, J. (2010). Important characteristics in an MBA program: The perceptions of online MBA students. American
Journal of Business Education, 3(4), 33-41.
Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C.C. & Bransford, J.D. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating previously successful routines with needs for new
learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204-214.
Shea, P., Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A Study of Teaching Presence and Student Sense of Learning Community in Fully Online and Web-Enhanced
College Courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online
education. Computers & Education, 52, 543-553.
Shea, P., Vickers, J. & Hayes, S. (2010). Online Instructional Effort Measured through the Lens of Teaching Presence in the Community of Inquiry
Framework: A Re-Examination of Measures and Approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 127-153.
Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky knowledge: barriers to knowing in the firm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Topper, A. (2007). Are they the same? Comparing the instructional quality of online and face‐to‐face graduate education courses. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 681-691.
Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning?. Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75-79.
Appendix - Surveys