Being Present in an Online Environment

Presence is an important component of any course or training, whether it be face-to-face or online.  Purposefully integrating presence, however, is often overlooked in online settings. What comes so easily in a traditional in-person setting needs to be purposefully integrated into an online environment.

Instructional designers  are likely familiar with the Community of Inquiry (Noland-Grant, 2019), but artfully integrating it into online training and courses takes planning and preparation.

Basically, all training or courses (whether face-to-face or fully online) need social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence to engage the learners. 

I view this as learners need to 

• interact with the facilitator (which may or may not be the instructional designer for the course or training), 
• interact with one another, and 
• interact with the content. 

This is particularly true with the current "remote" learning which can be often be a mishmash of approaches as teachers are trying to cope without ever having been trained in good remote instruction.

It is up to instructional designers to make spaces for this to happen.

I've been teaching at a distance for quite some time - since the mid 1990s actually - and remember the frustration we faced trying to engage and retain our learners - and other faculty to persuade them to try distance learning. This means we were teaching at a distance before we really knew what that meant and what was necessary to engage learners! In 2006, online courses often had a 10% to 20% higher failed retention rate than traditional classroom environments (Herbert). Couple this with 40% to 80% of online students dropping out of online classes (Smith, 2010), and we see some definite issues!  Review of existing literature indicates that online courses have several social, technological, and motivational issues existing from both the learners’ and the faculty’s perspectives.

(Keep in mind, these were college students and adult learners, and the current issue of remote learning retention in K-12 has not really been examined.)

Enter the Community of Inquiry and the research indicating the need for teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence....all leading to enhanced interaction, enhanced learning, and more engaged students!

Interacting with the Facilitator

Why?   Why do learners need to interact with the course or training facilitator? and what IS a "facilitator"?

 

I'll start with the term "facilitator." In good fully online learning there IS no teacher as the students are presented with a variety of ways to teach themselves, resulting in course facilitators, rather than teachers. Sometimes, the person designing the course is the course facilitator, but not necessarily, so both facilitators and instructional designers need to understand and incorporate all best practices of online instruction. 

 

Student-instructor (i.e., facilitator) interaction has long been linked to retention in both face-to-face (Tinto, 1975, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1997) and online learning (Li, et.al, 2021; O'Leary & Quinlan, 2007; Yuan & Kim, 2014). In the case of online learning, such interaction is not limited to instructional communication (i.e., email, video) but may also include off-line communication and personal dialogue through the telephone.

Learners often report feel isolated and disconnected in their online courses (Collins, et al, 2019) which frequently results in poor grades and an increased likelihood of dropout. Distance learners want to see the instructor, to hear the instructor, to feel connected with that instructor in some way. This very connection increases retention AND engagement.

video-conferencing with a student

I use a variety of methods to interact with students, such as individual video-conferencing and  feedback,  but I also try to integrate videos throughout the course or training, allowing students to hear me talk about a topic. The individual videoconferencing for onboarding has been invaluable in creating a sense of community, and the narrated grading videos allow me to talk to students as I grade, suggesting a conversation of types.

I tend to combine feedback techniques: written with video ... using several layers of feedback.

Huh?

Perhaps I should provide a wee bit of my feedback/grading history.

Originally I taught English courses and writing, and even though my curricular assignments have changed over the years, I often find myself still teaching writing...or some component of writing.  One of the constant concerns - and I do not believe this one has been solved yet - is that students seldom carry over learning from one course to another - with regards to writing. I would start with college freshmen who could not form cohesive paragraphs and by the end of a course they not only wrote well-developed paragraphs, but they could write the vestigial 5-paragraph essay, well-developed and with few punctuation errors. Second semester the same students signed up for part 2 of the course, and we were back at the beginning!

I knew they knew better!

THEY knew they knew better!

hmmmmm... obviously what I thought was working wasn't....  so... time for a change.... All English courses at that institution were organized the same way, using a multiple draft approach with multiple revisions and per feedback as well as instructor feedback.  Students left those classes well prepared to write well.

Yet, they didn't.

It was as though they had never ever written a paper, had never taken an English course.... everything was forgotten.

The issue was one of transfer of knowledge.  Students had a difficult time transferring what they learned in one course to another. A history faculty member and I hit upon a plan: we would co-teach an American history course that required formal papers. He taught the history, and together we reviewed the paper requirements, and we applied the revision/multiple draft approach that all English faculty used....   Students would receive two grades on their paper - one in history on the content, and one from me on the writing. Each paper was graded twice, and many earned A/D or A/C...great history content, not-so-great on the writing skills.  So I asked them why. Their response: "It was a history class.  Writing doesn't matter in a history class."

I have yet to solve this issue because students still do not often take the learning with them, not the writing learning..... so .... I still play with feedback methods, hoping to eventually hit upon the right combination. keeping in mind the need to continue to connect with students

Time to return to where I was: I have begun combining feedback techniques: written with video ... using several layers of feedback, breaking the feedback down into chunks. Snagit and Camtasia help me create this feedback, referred to as screencasting (Seror, 2012).


Let's suppose I have a paper/written assignment to grade.

          Step 1:  I read the paper from beginning to end, making no marks, just  to gain a sense of the submission...and to decide where to go from there.

          Step 2: Then I begin making comments on the paper.  Currently, I pull the paper up directly in the gradebook in CANVAS and insert comments there..but there is more to it than this..I note patterns of errors. Writing errors tend to fall into groups, creating a pattern of errors. A person may have trouble, for example, with commas, and an instructor looking carefully at those comma errors will notice a pattern of the same type of mistake being made repeatedly. When looked at individually, one error could be made  a dozen times, looking overwhelming to the student. Once a student understands he or she  really only made ONE error, not 20, the student is in a better place to learn how to correct that one error. So the first time that error is made, I highlight it in a specific color,  and insert a comment giving the name of the error and a url reference. The next time I see that error, I highlight it again in the same color. (More to come!) I use other tools provided through CANVAS - comments, text, and strikeout.  As I reach other errors - perhaps a sentence structure or clarity issue - I circle or highlight them, making a brief notation in the comment box.

         Step 3: Once I have done this with the entire paper, I pull up the video capture function in SnagIt. Jing would also work although videos are limited to 5 minutes. Screencast-o-matic is another good tool for screencapture and narrated grading videos....as is Zoom.  I wanted a feature that allows me to do a video capture of the screen as I talk through the feedback process, making comments and explaining comments in more detail - holding a conversation of sorts (albeit one-sided) ....much like having students look over my shoulder as I grade. Students receive a pdf of their annotated paper and a copy of their video file.

Following is an excerpt from one of my feedback videos:

Students have told me how much they appreciate these videos and feel as though I really took time to "talk" to them, and that they matter. AS to whether this type of feedback improves learning, I am not sure....but it does help to create instructor-to-student interaction.

Interacting with one another...and  a little content...perhaps the facilitator?

Best practices of engagement also suggest that students need to interact with one another to decrease that feeling of social isolation...aka social presence (Noland-Grant, 2019).

Although synchronous group work would increase social presence, it is often not very practical for my students who tend to work 40 hours a week while balancing a variety of other roles: parent/grandparent/child/spouse/partner, student, community member, and possibly more. Instead of increasing engagement, it may increase stress as adult learners now have to balance one more item in their daily juggling act. So, the few times I do offer this opportunity, I make it optional, allowing learners to choose whether or not to team up.

Although I enjoy the safety of forums (i.e., they can be kept private within our LMS), I grow tired of using them and often wonder if students do as well. The following activity is from The Adult Learner and incorporates a padlet, a video, and a forum:

introduction within the forum

Next... students watched the following video about adult learners:

 And now, on to the next component of the task:

The conclusion of the activity

This activity followed an icebreaker forum where they introduced themselves  to one another by creating videos. Now that they know each other a little better, it was time to introduce them to some thinking about course content (Wait!  isn't that Cognitive presence, too?)

YES! Sometimes one activity can foster several types of presence.

In this instance, students 

1. ponder a topic (cognitive presence/interacting with content) and 
2. post their thoughts on a padlet where they could also 
3. interact with one another (social presence/interacting with each other)
4. watch a video about the content
5. complete remaining activities in the Welcome Module (cognitive presence/interacting with content)
   
6. consider any changes to their perceptions with regards to adult learners (cognitive presence/interacting with content), then
   
7. post to the forum
8. reply to at least two classmates (cognitive presence/interacting with content AND social presence/interacting with one another), 
9. I then interact with each original post, drawing  ideas together and posing questions (cognitive presence/interacting with content AND teaching presence/interacting with the facilitator)

Yes, technically that one set of tasks covered all three type of presences, but I do not really think of my comments as adding much, other than they know I read each one and responded.

Interacting with content

I realize I have already covered this above, but I wanted to share one of my favorite ways to encourage interacting with content (along with each other).

I love VoiceThread for this!

Here is a Voice Thread from EDU 654 2019:

 

VoiceThread allows learners to present content and to interact through text, audio, or videos.

Now, let's break this task down into its individual components:

1.  I crafted a list of tools that designers could use to share content, but I wanted them to explore these tools on their own to consider their usability, then share with one another. Key to this activity is the need for learners to look for these tools, play with them a little and consider how they might prove useful....all on their own...first. the purpose was not for me to suggest how they might use, but for them to come around to that on their own (cognitive presence):

Learner preparation for the activity

Learners review those topics and tools online AND review how VoiceThread works so they know how to post for the next part of this activity:

 

So....students interact with the content, reflect, and make decisions (cognitive presence); they interact with one another (social presence), and I then add my comments to theirs on the VoiceThread (teaching presence)....all in one activity.

Designers do not need to provide three activities for every piece of content....as long as they plan ahead, and plan well, keeping in mind the importance of integrating these three types of presence through each lesson or unit.

 Happy design!

 

References

Collins, K., Groff, S., Mathena, C., & Kupczynski, L. (2019). Asynchronous video and the development of instructor social presence and student engagement. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 53-70.

Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.htm

Li, Y., Nishimura, N., Yagami, H., & Park, H. (2021). An empirical study on online learners’ continuance intentions in China.  Sustainability, 13(889), 889-1007.

Noland-Grant, C. R. (2019). The community of inquiry framework as learning design model: A case study in online postgraduate education. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-15.

O'Leary, P., & Quinlan, T. (2007).  Learner-instructor telephone interaction: Effects on satisfaction and achievement of online students. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 133-143.

Seror, J. (2012). In the classroom: Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology.  TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-111.

Smith, B. (2010). E-learning technologies: A comparative study of adult learners enrolled on blended and online campuses engaging in a virtual classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1982). Defining dropout: A matter of perspective. In E. T. Pascarella (Ed.), Studying student attrition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.

Yuan, J.,  & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities  in online courses. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 30(3), 220-232.