Patrick Lowenthal ~ patrick.lowenthal@ucdenver.edu

Joni Dunlap ~ joni.dunlap@ucdenver.edu

Slides & Paper @ slideshare.net/plowenthal

Investigating Students' Perceptions of Various Instructional Strategies to Establish Social Presence

Background

High Tech&

Low Tech

Synchronous Sessions

Personalized Videos

Superhero Powers

What Makes You Rock?

5-Minute Phone Call

What’s Happening?

The Impetus “Twitter has been a great way for me

to check in with everyone who is using it. I found out how other’s were feeling about school, how life was treating them, how their jobs and families were doing. This is something much more intimate than mandatory weekly discussions...”

What are students’ perceptions of various

social-presence strategies used in an online

course?

Our Big Question

Phas

e 1 “What

aspects of the course helped you feel connected to your course colleagues? To me?”

Phas

e 2 Survey on

perceptions of social presence

Phas

e 3 Follow-up

semi-structured interviews with subset of students

Overview

Phase 1

Phase 1 Method

“What aspects of the course helped you feel connected to your course colleagues? To me?”

Phase 1 Results• “I really LOVE twittering with everyone. It

really made me feel like we knew each other more and were actually in class together.”

• “The Soundtrack of Your Life: It was a creative way to introduce ourselves to each other that communicated something about ourselves instead of using words. I thought the Google Doc activities were an excellent way to express ourselves freely for others to read freely about our expressions.”

• “In general, the discussions helped me feel connected to my course colleagues. The discussions also helped me feel connected to you (Joni). In addition, the feedback I received on my projects helped quite a bit as well.”

• “The structured discussions that we had always help me, sometimes I may miss a point that someone else may see, so I like that and the various points other students make. I also like the peer review on the projects, I think that helped me feel connected. I think you did a great job with interacting with the discussions and any email I sent you answered quickly, so I felt connected.”

Phase 1 Results

Phase 1 Results• “The part of the course that made me feel

connected to the other students was the peer reviews. The aspect of the course that helped me feel connected to the instructor was the feedback I received from the instructor and the follow-up email exchanges.”

• “I really liked being an integral part of reviewing.  I felt (especially in certain assignment) that I really got some insight into how the other students interpreted the assignments and put their own life (either work or other parts of their life) into the assignment.”  

Phase 2

Phase 2 Method• Adapted the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008).• Eliminated cognitive presence questions;

added questions focused on students’ perceptions of instructional strategies / technologies.

• Sample included students completing a graduate certificate in eLearning, M.A. in eLearning, or a M.A. in Instructional Technology.

• Administered the survey to 4 different sections of completely online courses (fall 2009, spring 2010, & summer2010)

• 37 students completed the survey; 36.6% response rate  

Phase 2 Method• Adapted the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008).• Eliminated cognitive presence questions;

added questions focused on students’ perceptions of instructional strategies / technologies.

• Sample included students completing a graduate certificate in eLearning, M.A. in eLearning, or a M.A. in Instructional Technology.

• Administered the survey to 4 different sections of completely online courses (fall 2009, spring 2010, & summer2010)

• 37 students completed the survey; 36.6% response rate  

Phase 2 Method• Adapted the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008).• Eliminated cognitive presence questions;

added questions focused on students’ perceptions of instructional strategies / technologies.

• Sample included students completing a graduate certificate in eLearning, M.A. in eLearning, or a M.A. in Instructional Technology.

• Administered the survey to 4 different sections of completely online courses (fall 2009, spring 2010, & summer2010)

• 37 students completed the survey; 36.6% response rate  

Phase 2 Method• Adapted the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008).• Eliminated cognitive presence questions;

added questions focused on students’ perceptions of instructional strategies / technologies.

• Sample included students completing a graduate certificate in eLearning, M.A. in eLearning, or a M.A. in Instructional Technology.

• Administered the survey to 4 different sections of completely online courses (fall 2009, spring 2010, & summer 2010)

• 37 students completed the survey; 36.6% response rate  

Phase 2 Method• Adapted the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008).• Eliminated cognitive presence questions;

added questions focused on students’ perceptions of instructional strategies / technologies.

• Sample included students completing a graduate certificate in eLearning, M.A. in eLearning, or a M.A. in Instructional Technology.

• Administered the survey to 4 different sections of completely online courses (fall 2009, spring 2010, & summer2010)

• 37 students completed the survey; 36.6% response rate  

Phase 2 Results•  Social Presence, Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning Results

Total

Social Presence M=2.85

Affective Expression M=2.75

Open Communication M=3.20

Group Cohesion M=2.60

Satisfaction M=3.51

Perceived Learning M=3.65

Phase 2 ResultsTop 5 ~ Connected to Instructor 

Detailed Written Feedback M=3.62

One-on-one emails M=3.57

General “How-to” screencasts M=3.54

Screencasts (Audio/Video) Feedback M=3.42

Instructor bios M=3.42

Phase 2 ResultsBottom 5 ~ Connected to Instructor 

Twitter M=1.97

Top 100 Design Guidelines M=2.24

Just Ask Zoltar M=2.47

Musical Interludes M=2.57

Superhero Powers M=2.60

Phase 2 ResultsTop 5 ~ Connected to Peers 

Digital Storytelling M=3.33

Previous Relationships M=3.32

Open Access to Peers Projects M=3.26

Peer Reviews by Fellow Students M=3.19

One-on-One Emails M=3.12

Phase 2 ResultsBottom 5 ~ Connected to Peers 

Twitter M=1.73

Just Ask Zoltar M=2.1

Top 100 Design Guidelines M=2.19

Instructors’ (Audio/Video) Feedback on Peer’s Projects

M=2.38

Musical Activities M=2.50

Phase 2 Results

• Most Effective: Phone calls & Screencast feedback

• Least Effective: Twitter & the “Top 100 of Design Guidelines” Google Docs activity

 

Most & Least Effective ~ Connected to Instructor 

Phase 2 Results

• Most Effective: Digital storytelling, previous relationships with peers, & open access to review peers projects

• Least Effective: Twitter

Note: All of the strategies except Twitter received a mean score of above neutral (2.0 on a 4-point scale)

Most & Least Effective ~ Connected to Peers 

Phase 3

Phase 3 Methods• Follow up semi-structured Interviews

(3 highest & 3 lowest scoring )

Phase 3 Results1. Corroborated Phase 2 results

--Previous relationships, feedback, one-on-one communication

2. Clarified Phase 2 results --Previous relationships & group work are only helpful if positive --Twitter isn’t bad.

3. Questioned quantifying Social Presence

Concluding Thoughts

Implications1. Provide personal, individualized feedback.

2. Provide opportunities for students to build relationships through collaborative work and sharing.

3. Being accessible.

Patrick Lowenthal patrick.lowenthal@ucdenver.edu

Joni Dunlap

joni.dunlap@ucdenver.edu

Slides & Paper @ www.slideshare.net/plowenthal

Contact Us