Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

self-efficacy can be viewed as a subjective judgment of one’s level of competence in executing certain behaviors or achieving certain outcomes in the future. Self-efficacy has been identified as the best predictor of college GPA and among the best predictors of college persistence through meta-analytic research (Robbins et al., 2004). Further, commenting on the state of the art in self-regulated learning research Winne suggested that self-regulation is contingent on positive self-efficacy beliefs, arguing that “learners must subscribe to a system of epistemological and motivational beliefs that classifies failure as an occasion to be informed, a condition that is controllable, and a stimulus to spend effort to achieve better” (Winne, 2005). This contrast of failure attribution as trait (e.g., “I’m just not good at math”) versus failure as occasion to be informed (“I can control, adapt, and learn from this”) is a classic view of maladaptive and adaptive self-efficacy beliefs.

In the current study we therefore examine the relationship between CoI constructs and elements of self efficacy in order to begin to investigate the larger theme of collaborative online learner regulation and learning presence.

Thus, self-efficacy is “concerned not with what one has but with belief in what one can do with whatever resources one can muster” (Bandura, 2007, p. 6).

Bandura has noted that slightly elevated efficacy can have a bigger impact on subsequent performance. Overestimating one’s capabilities to produce a behavior and outcome may boost performance and give rise to motivation to persist in face of obstacles and seatback, while the opposite is true for underestimating one’s capabilities, which may suppress productive goals, persistence and effort (Bandura, 2007). Thus there is an important connection between self-efficacy, effort, and subsequent performance.

Positive psychological and emotional states in the aftermath of successful execution of certain academic behaviors naturally lead to sense of competence and subsequently results in enhanced sense of efficacy.

We suggest here that elements within the CoI framework may serve as mechanisms for supporting self-efficacy. Specifically we conjecture that effective teaching presence and positive social presence should serve as sources of social persuasion and positive affect supportive of self-efficacy.

(Bandura, 1997). These and other studies have suggested that self-efficacy has a substantial role in predicting student engagement, motivation and performance ( [Bong, 2004], [Caraway et al., 2003], [Chemers et al., 2001], [Choi, 2005], [Smith et al., 2001] and [Vrugt et al., 2002]).

The participants in the study were a random sample of 3165 students from 42 two- and four-year institutions in New York State.

Gaining knowledge about the reasons for learning and achievement of online students has attracted a great deal of attention among both researchers and practitioners. Understanding the factors that have an influence on the success of online education has significant implications for designing productive online communities.

Reviewing studies that investigated elements of online learner self-regulation

This ongoing project to document all instances of teaching, social, and cognitive presence in complete online courses also resulted in identification of learner discourse that did not fit within the model, i.e. could not be reliably coded as indicators of teaching, social, or cognitive presence ( [Shea, 2010] and [Shea et al., 2010]).

Additional work on the CoI model (Shea, Vickers, & Hayes, 2010) suggested that past research methods may have resulted in a systematic under representation of the instructional effort involved in online education.

These exceptions represent interesting data for refining and enhancing the model as they suggest that learners are attempting to accomplish goals that are not accounted for within the CoI framework.

In this paper we examine the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) suggesting that the model may be enhanced through a fuller articulation of the roles of online learners. We present the results of a study of 3165 students in online and hybrid courses from 42 two- and four-year institutions in which we examine the relationship between learner self-efficacy measures and their ratings of the quality of their learning in virtual environments. We conclude that a positive relationship exists between elements of the CoI framework and between elements of a nascent theoretical construct that we label “learning presence”. We suggest that learning presence represents elements such as self-efficacy as well as other cognitive, behavioral, and motivational constructs supportive of online learner self-regulation.

the CoI framework attempts to articulate the social, technological, and pedagogical processes that engender collaborative knowledge construction. It therefore represents an effort to resolve the greatest challenge to the quality of online education

Learner discussions also included efforts to divide up tasks, manage time, and set goals in order to successfully complete group projects. As such they appeared to be indicators of online learner self and co-regulation, which can be viewed as the degree to which students in collaborative online educational environments are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in the learning process (Winters & Azevedo, 2005).

the authors concluded that all the studies converged on advantageous outcomes for providing support for “metacognitive” learning strategies including self-reflection, self-explanation, and self-monitoring.

successfully orchestrating a dialogue demands fairly sophisticated skills. Conversational contributions need to be simultaneously parsed according to their disciplinary value, their location within the chain of collective argumentation, their relevance to the instructional goals, and their role as indicators of the student’s ongoing understanding. The outcome of this complex appraisal is a sense of the amount and quality of the guidance that specific contributions and the conversation as a whole require to support learning.” (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, p. 591)

Zhao et al. also concluded that studies in which instructor interaction with students was medium to high resulted in better learning outcomes for online students relative to classroom learners.

Social presence is the perceived presence of others in mediated communication (Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 1999), which Garrison et al. (2000) contend supports both cognitive and teaching presence through its ability to instigate, to sustain, and to support interaction. It had its genesis in the work of John Dewey and is consistent with all theoretical approaches to learning in higher education.

Teaching presence is defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing [students’] personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001, p.5). Vygotsky’s (1978) scaffolding analogies illustrate an assistive role for teachers in providing instructional support to students from their position of greater content knowledge. Although many authors recommend a “guide on the side” approach to moderating student discussions, a key feature of this social cognition model is the adult, the expert, or the more skilled peer who scaffolds a novice’s learning

Shea, Pickett, & Pelz , 2004

Each category of a tutor’s presence is vital to learning and to the establishment of the learning community; tutors' behavior must be such that they are seen to be “posting regularly, responding in a timely manner and modeling good online communication and interaction” (Palloff & Pratt, 2003, p.118). Without an instructor’s explicit guidance and “teaching presence,” students were found to engage primarily in “serial monologues” (Pawan et al., 2003). Baker (2004) discovered that “instructor immediacy, i.e., teaching presence (Rourke et al., 1999), was a more reliable predictor of effective cognitive learning than whether students felt close to each other. Studies have demonstrated that instructor participation in threaded discussion is critical to the development of social presence (Shea, Li, Swan, & Pickett, 2005; Swan & Shih, 2005) and sometimes not fully appreciated by online faculty (Liu, Bonk, Magjuka, Lee, & Su, 2005). Shea, Li, and Pickett (2006) proposed that teaching presence – viewed as the core role of the online instructor – is a promising mechanism for developing learning community in online environments.

students ranked instructor modeling as the most important element in building online community, while instructors ranked it fourth.

Shea (2006), who completed an extensive study of teaching presence and online learning, concluded that two categories (“design” and “directed facilitation”) sufficed to define the construct.

Kalman, Ravid, Raban, and Rafaeli (2006) argued that interactivity is an essential characteristic of effective online communication and plays an important role in keeping message threads and their authors together. Interactive communication (online as well as in traditional settings) is engaging, and loss of interactivity results in a breakdown of the communicative process.

Research indicates the existence of a relationship between learners’ perceptions of social presence and their motivation for participation in online discussions (Weaver & Albion, 2005).

Northrup (2002) found that online learners felt it was important for instructors to promote collaboration and conversation. When interactive activities are carefully planned, they lead not only to greater learning but also to enhanced motivation (Berge 1999; Northrup, 2002).

Researchers have suggested that timing of messages can serve as a proxy for a sense of social presence (Blanchard, 2004), as an indication of attentiveness (Walther & Bunz, 2005) or respect (Bargh & McKenna, 2004), and as a clue to the sociability of a community (Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005). As such, the frequency of messages may serve as a signal for how engaged participants are with the community.

Eom found that the most significant factors for increasing student satisfaction with online classes are paying attention to students and responding to their concerns.

The highly esteemed instructor was especially active from semester midpoint to semester end; she more than doubled her active participation in both teaching presence (especially discourse and instruction) and social presence (all three categories).

the lack of specific, progressively structured inquiry tasks and/or the lack of facilitation skills (teaching presence/facilitating discourse) may have contributed to the relatively limited occurrences of cognitive presence.

something else accounted for the extreme satisfaction and dissatisfaction experienced by students in the two forums. The something else may be the two exceptional events that occurred during the third month: The instructor held in low esteem became nearly dysfunctional, while the highly esteemed instructor exhibited very high teacher presence and social presence (see Table 3 and 4).

Shea, Pickett, and Pelt (2003) found that students’ perceived teacher presence also correlates with perceived learning as well as with students’ satisfaction with the forum. This correlation points to the tentative conclusion that teaching presence affords learning by setting a convenient climate.

we suggest that students’ perceived learning in course forums has a significant impact on their participation

the table is suggestive of the eventual possibility of having an “objective” tool for evaluating the quality of a given forum.

(Anderson et al., 2001).

Teaching effectiveness may be defined as how an instructor can best direct, facilitate, and support students toward certain academic ends, such as achievement and satisfaction. Teaching effectiveness has been investigated extensively in traditional classrooms for more than seven decades (for a meta-analysis of empirical studies from 1995-2004, see Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Over the past five years, research has become directed toward teaching effectiveness in online or virtual classes. As a preface to our study, we discuss findings and conclusions concerning teaching effectiveness in traditional classrooms.

Journal Help ISSN: 1492-3831 Journal Content Search All Authors Title Abstract Index terms Full Text Browse By Issue By Author By Title User Username Password Remember me Article Tools Abstract Print this article Indexing metadata How to cite item Review policy Email this article (Login required) Email the author (Login required) Post a Comment (Login required) Font Size Make font size smaller Make font size default Make font size larger SUBSCRIBE TO MAILING LIST 5,591  subscribers Select Language​▼ function googleTranslateElementInit() { new google.translate.TranslateElement({ pageLanguage: 'en', autoDisplay: false, layout: google.translate.TranslateElement.InlineLayout.SIMPLE }, 'google_translate_element'); } Home About Register Archives Announcements Resources Submissions http://www.irrodl.org/

One of the most widely cited sources for teacher effectiveness in traditional classrooms is Chickering and Gamson (1987), who suggested seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.

encourages student-faculty contact, encourages cooperation among students, encourages active learning, gives prompt feedback, emphasizes time on task, communicates high expectations, respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

The cool thing is that I was able to show him some things that Alex showed me that he didn’t know, I looked like a rock star:)

research

Research is a difficult topic to entice high school student with.

I think the digital age is reducing the amount of human interaction and students are losing out on the social aspects of school.

Right now I am very frustrated. I have tried very very hard to listen to all of Alex’s comments throughout the semester and make changes based on her criticisms. My course when reviewed needed a lot of work but she expressed being frustrated that I didn’t take her advice when I am always careful to do that. I am not sure if I misunderstood or maybe it was the way things were worded. She had mentioned changing the names of my module’s during one of the previous assignments but in my course review she said she was frustrated because I didn’t listen about changing names of discussions and forums, when in fact, I changed the names of the modules like we had discussed. We never discussed discussion or forum names. I think these issues are issues that need to be addressed when learning about teaching online. Without having a face to face discussion misconceptions are not always cleared up right away and could cause problems later.