Running head: ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Best Practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses Connie S. Miller Arizona State University 1 2 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Abstract Online education has become increasingly popular in graduate nursing education. Establishing a strong sense of teaching presence in online courses requires planning and effort on the part of the instructor. The purpose of this project was to develop an evidence-based online asynchronous educational module to enhance nurse educators’ teaching presence behaviors in online courses. Teaching presence survey tools were developed and pilot tested to evaluate instructors’ selfreported teaching presence behaviors over time, as well as their intent and actual follow-through in performing teaching presence behaviors. Despite statistically significant higher levels of participants’ intent to perform teaching presence behaviors following the educational module, there was no significant change in the frequency of teaching presence behaviors reported by participants 8 weeks after completion of the module. Overall, the self-reported scores for each of the teaching presence behaviors on the surveys was high, offering little perceived room for improvement in this group of experienced instructors. Keywords: Community of Inquiry, faculty development, online learning, teaching presence ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Background and Significance The use of online education has grown dramatically in the last decade (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011; Fish, & Wickersham, 2009) and has become increasingly popular in graduate nursing education. Fueled by the rapid and continuous development of distance learning technologies, this trend in nursing education is likely to grow and require increasing numbers of faculty members prepared to teach in the virtual environment. Online education is typically defined by researchers as a course or program where 80% or more of the course content is delivered online with very limited to no face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2015). According to a survey on the state of online higher education in United States, 6.7 million (approximately one-third) of all college students have enrolled in at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Comparisons have been made between face-to-face and online instruction, however, one professor likened such contrasts to a comparison between pomegranates and tomatoes due to the vast differences between the two teaching modalities (Weimer, 2015). A new and different skill set is required for online teaching which requires instructors to take more of the “guide-on-theside” rather than the “sage-on-the-stage” approach to teaching (Pallof & Pratt, 1999; Pallor & Pratt, 2002). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis done by the U.S. Department of Education found modest learning improvements for online students compared to those receiving face-to-face instruction (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). Student engagement in online courses is essential to learning success (Bangert, 2004), with a positive relationship between student engagement, higher order thinking, and application of knowledge (Chen, ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 4 Lambert, & Guidry, 2010; Hu & Kuh, 2001; Robinson & Hullinger, 2008). A sense of community among online learners must be developed for student engagement to flourish (Lear, 2010). Du, Liu and Brown (2010) define an online learning community as “a group of diverse individuals united by communication media who develop a sense of trust and connectedness through online interaction and collaboration” (p. 119). Learner-instructor interaction was identified as one of the recommended best practices for motivating learners (Bangert, 2004; Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). In successful online courses students interact with one another, the instructor, and the course material in what is known as a Community of Inquiry (CoI) (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Originally designed for research in online educational practice, the CoI framework is a process model of online learning founded on teaching and learning theories in higher education, and John Dewey’s educational philosophy of collaborative constructivism and practical inquiry (Swan, Garrison & Richardson, 2009). The CoI model is a framework consisting of three elements deemed essential in online learning—cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (see Appendix A). Cognitive presence is defined as the “extent to which participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison, et al., 2000, p. 89). Social presence is “the degree to which participants in computer-mediated communication feel affectively connected to one another” (Garrison, et al., 2000, p. 89). Teaching presence is defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer, 2001, p. 163). ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 5 Within the CoI model, teaching presence is further conceptualized as having three components: (1) instructional design and organization; (2) facilitation of discourse; and (3) direct instruction (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Teaching presence begins prior to the start of the course as the teacher designs, plans, and organizes the course, and it continues once the course is underway as the teacher administers the learning experiences, facilitates discourse, and provides direct instruction as needed (Anderson, Liam, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Garrison, et al., (2000) refer to teaching presence as the “binding element in creating a community of inquiry,” noting its importance in establishing both social and cognitive presence (Garrison, et al., 2000, p. 96). Online courses lack the physical presence of the instructor as in face-to-face courses, and often rely heavily on written text (Anderson, et al., 2001). Establishing a strong sense of teaching presence in online courses doesn’t just happen automatically, but rather, requires planning and effort on the part of the instructor. Teaching presence, along with its three components of instructional design and organization; facilitation of discourse; and direct instruction, served as the focus for this DNP project. Problem Statement Faculty are not being adequately prepared prior to teaching online (Conrad, 2004; Keramidas, Ludlow, Collins, & Baird, 2007; Kosak et al., 2004; Zsohar & Smith, 2008). Many new educators are recruited, hired, and immediately put into positions of teaching without any prior knowledge or experience in the educator role, and with little preparation on the job (Zungolo, 2004). The role of the nurse educator requires a breadth of knowledge and the development of skills and core competencies (Halstead, 2007). This preparation and skill development is ideally begun in graduate level courses specific to the role of the nurse educator, however, not all doctoral or master’s degree programs in nursing offer courses specific to the ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE nurse educator role in their curricula. In fact, many, if not most, graduates with advanced degrees in nursing have never had any courses or specific education to prepare them to teach nursing (Zungolo, 2004), let alone to teach an online course. Many faculty members have described feeling overwhelmed or intimidated with the technological challenges of online teaching (Coppola, et al., 2002; Sword, 2012). The average age of nursing faculty members in the state of Arizona is currently 54 years (AACN, 2014c) placing them in the “digital immigrant” category described by Prensky (2001) as persons who grew up in a world without computers and thereby often lack confidence and familiarity with using technology (Prensky, 2001). In general, nursing faculty report they do not feel prepared to teach online and have had limited to no formal preparation or experience in the pedagogy of online education (Cuellar, 2002; Johnson, 2008; Sword, 2012; Zsohar & Smith, 2008). Ray (2000) conducted a quantitative study of experienced online educators to provide faculty perspectives of the importance of training for online teaching. Those teaching in online courses overwhelmingly concluded that faculty members should be required to have preparation prior to teaching online for the first time (Ray, 2009). Johnson (2008) and Sword (2012) independently studied the needs of faculty members who had transitioned from teaching in the classroom to online teaching. The experience of transitioning to teaching online from classroom teaching was described as in the Sword (2012) study as “disillusionment with the lack of or limited administrative support in terms of communication, resources, mentors, orientation, and professional development” (Sword, 2012, p. 270). Both of these studies pointed to the need for more support and education related to online teaching (Johnson, 2008; Sword, 2012). Even 6 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 7 faculty members with online teaching experience expressed a desire for ongoing professional education in pedagogy as well as technology (Kosak et al. 2004; Ray, 2009). Internal Evidence Consistent with the literature review, most new nurse educators at this author’s organization, a public Research 1 Doctoral University (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2015), also reported little or no previous teaching preparation to serve as a foundation for their new roles in academia. Despite wide and varied backgrounds and experiences as expert nurse clinicians and leaders, many described a steep learning curve as they discovered all facets of the faculty role. Mentoring new faculty mentors was an informal process and varied widely on how it was implemented. At a recent faculty meeting, several new faculty members shared their desires for additional mentoring and support. Most of the graduate nursing programs in this college of nursing (CON) have converted to an online program format, but there was no mandatory preparation or program in place to assist in preparing faculty members for teaching online. Seasoned nurse educators at this CON, who were new to online teaching, expressed surprise at how difficult and time-consuming online teaching was. Anecdotal consensus among experienced faculty members was that they had, over time and with practice, discovered for themselves what worked best for teaching online. Recently, this author served as a teaching assistant in an online doctoral course and was surprised by a student comment on teaching presence. In one of the course discussions early in the semester, the student shared that the course had more teaching presence in the first few weeks than she normally experienced in an entire semester. That comment led this author to ask questions, talk to other online faculty, and ultimately identify the problem addressed in this paper and the following PICOT question: In nursing faculty teaching online (P), how does an ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 8 educational module (I), compared to current practice of no preparation (C), affect knowledge and self-reported use of teaching behaviors associated with teaching presence (O) 8 weeks after the educational module (T)? Search Strategy and Process An exhaustive search of the literature related to the research question above was conducted using the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), 2005-2015, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), 2005-2015, Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT), no year limits, Psychology Information (PsychINFO), 2005-2015, and PubMed, 2005-2015. The keywords and controlled vocabulary terms used to search included: computer-assisted instruction, computer, distance education, faculty, nursing faculty, online, and presence. Search terms used in CINAHL included both CINAHL headings and text words: faculty, nursing AND teaching methods, and (online OR computer) which yielded a total of 104 results. Search filters applied were English language, humans, all adult age group and articles published in the last 10 years. This new search yielded 9 references which were all manually reviewed. Searches of the databases ERIC and PsycINFO were performed using the same keywords: faculty AND online AND teaching presence. This yielded a total of 30 references in ERIC that were reduced to 19 after limiting the search to the last 10 years and educational level of higher education. The PsychINFO search initially found 19 that decreased to 16 after limiting to only English language, adulthood, human, and the last 10 years. MERLOT is a database of educational resources for learning and online teaching. It was searched using the keywords nursing and online for a yield of 45 references which were all manually reviewed. PubMed was searched using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): computer-assisted instruction ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 9 along with education, distance; and faculty, nursing with the Boolean term ‘AND’ applied. This yielded 72 references which decreased to 38 once the limits English language, and the last 10 years were applied. The references found in the electronic database search were organized in the reference manager, EndNote®, and duplicates were removed. Each reference was individually critically appraised for appropriateness to the PICOT question. In addition to the electronic databases, the author manually reviewed the reference lists of each relevant article to yield additional studies with valuable and relevant data to support the external evidence and conceptual framework. Roughly 60 research studies and literature reviews were scrutinized and the top 10 research studies with the highest level of evidence and most direct relation to the PICOT question were selected and organized in an evaluation table (Appendix B) and further synthesized and clustered based on similarities in the synthesis table (Appendix C). Evidence Synthesis The CoI model is the most frequently cited framework for explaining the online learning experience and provides a method and process for assessing the quality of teaching in online courses (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (Appendix D) has been used in hundreds of research studies to evaluate the dimensions of the three overlapping presences: social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Arbaugh, et al., 2008). This research instrument is completed by students who rate their perceptions of each of the three types of presence using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from one-Strongly Disagree, to fiveStrongly Agree. The 34 item CoI survey instrument assesses teaching presence with 13 items, social presence with 9 items, and cognitive presence with 12 items on the survey. The full CoI instrument has proven reliability and validity (Arbaugh, et al., 2009; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 10 Swan, et al., 2008). The Teaching Presence Scale (TPS) is a subscale of the full CoI instrument and was used in some of the studies evaluated for this evidence synthesis. The TPS is organized according to the three components: Instructional design and organization (6 items); facilitating discourse (8 items); and direct instruction (6 items) (Shea, Li & Pickett, 2006). Diaz, Swan, Ice, and Kupczynski (2010) studied the importance of each CoI item and found students (n=412) rated teaching presence component of the CoI to be more important than both cognitive presence and social presence. Mixed methods research with adult online learners identified the nature of teaching presence as the “catalyst that initiates the community development process” in online courses (Ke, 2010, p. 818) and the key features of teaching presence were found to be supportive of the adult learners’ social and cognitive presence (Ke, 2010). Teaching presence was found to foster cognitive presence (Hosler & Arent, 2010) and a study by Shea, et al., (2006) demonstrated that as student teaching presence increased, so did the sense of community among students (Shea, et al., 2006). A strong correlation was found between teaching presence behaviors and student’s sense of cohesion in the online classroom (Sheridan, Kelly & Bentz, 2013), as well as satisfaction in the course (Bangert, 2008; Ke, 2010; Shea, et al., 2003). High levels of satisfaction and learning were found with students who reported that their instructors provided high quality, prompt feedback and clear expectations (Shea, et al., 2001). Consistent with their preliminary study, Shea, Picket and Pelz (2003) found that students reported high levels of satisfaction and learning with all areas of teaching presence, noting the highest ratings in the Design and Organization component. This validated the emphasis of faculty development and preparation in the areas of online instructional design and organization to include setting curriculum, designing methods, ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 11 establishing time parameters, utilizing the medium effectively, and establishing netiquette (Shea, et al., 2003). A synthesis of the evidence on teaching presence in online courses revealed that teaching presence enhanced learning outcomes (Baker, 2010; Hart, 2012; Ivankova, 2005; Jackson, Jones, & Rodriquez, 2010; Shea & Vickers, 2010) and was a significant predictor of students’ affective learning, cognition, and motivation (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Baker, 2010; Garrison & Arbough, 2007; Gorsky & Blau, 2009). Sheridan, Kelly and Bentz (2013) studied students’ perceptions of the importance of various indicators of teaching presence and found all components of teaching presence in the CoI framework to be important to students but prioritized them according to the frequency of responses in different constructs (Sheridan, et al., 2013). When students were asked to identify the five most important instructor behaviors for their success in an online class, the most frequent response related to the instructor communicating in a clear and/or timely fashion with students. The next highest response was related to instructor disposition and positive examples given included “understanding, patient, and/or kind, being helpful, having sense of humor, being creative and fun, being fair, and being able to deliver good lectures” (Sheridan, et al., 2013, p.75). Other highly rated teaching presence behaviors listed were feedback; accessibility of materials; clarity in presenting course requirements, due dates or topics in a clear manner; and the desire for the instructor to participate in discussions or facilitation discussions (Sheridan, et al., 2013). Recommendations in the literature for preparing faculty members to teach online include formal orientation programs, mentors, and ongoing professional development (Baker, 2010; Ray, 2009; Robinia & Anderson, 2010; Sword, 2008). Most of the studies focused on what students ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 12 found to be most important in online courses and included recommendations for instructors to improve teaching presence in virtual courses (see the evidence table in Appendix B and the synthesis tables in Appendix C for further details of the studies reviewed). Conclusions from the Evidence The body of evidence attests to the importance of teaching presences in online courses. Findings that emerged from the data synthesis confirmed prior studies linking teaching presence in online courses to enhanced student learning outcomes and satisfaction. Conclusions from the data synthesis extend the literature supporting the construct validity of the CoI survey and point to use of the model constructs in developing online courses. In addition, the overall significance of teaching presence was confirmed to support social and cognitive presences and create a community of online learners. Overall, the studies synthesized and presented (see Appendices B and C) confirm the need for faculty preparation to teach online. All studies were found of sufficient strength and quality to provide confidence for developing an evidence-based intervention to enhance online teaching presence behaviors. Overall, the synthesis of the external evidence and recommendations provide the specific and valuable information needed to guide the implementation of the evidence-based project. Purpose and Rationale Nurse educators may be experienced and expert clinicians or leaders, and may have earned doctoral degrees, however, they still may not be adequately prepared to facilitate student learning outcomes in an online environment. The purpose of this project was to enhance nurse educators’ teaching presence behaviors in online courses. Relevant evidence was appraised and synthesized to develop an online asynchronous educational module on best practices for incorporating teaching presence behaviors. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 13 CHAPTER 2: APPLIED CLINICAL PROJECT: METHODS AND RESULTS This chapter describes the evidence-based practice model used to guide the DNP project, as well as the setting where the project was implemented. Methods to ensure protection of human subjects and recruit participants will be identified along with details of the educational module intervention, instruments used to collect data, resources needed to complete the project, and methods of data collection and analysis. This chapter will conclude with a discussion of the results and consistency with the current literature. Theoretical and Evidence-Based Frameworks Community of Inquiry Framework The CoI framework developed in the late 1990s by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) provided the theoretical framework for this project. The CoI framework was previously described in this paper (refer back to chapter 1). The value of the CoI framework has been well documented and points specifically to the importance of cultivating teaching presence as it relates to student satisfaction and learning in online education. Teaching presence, along with its three dimensions: design, facilitation, and direct instruction in online courses, provided the focus for this author’s evidence-based project. Model for Evidence-Based Practice Change An EBP framework is useful in translating and implementing research findings into practice (Gawliski & Rutledge, 2008). The Model for Evidence-Based Practice Change (Larrabee, 2004), a revised version of Rosswurm and Larabee’s (1999) model was chosen because of its systematic nature in guiding all phases of an evidence-based practice change, and usefulness in a variety of settings and organizations. This model includes six sequential steps (See Appendix E, Figure 2) similar to the nursing process: assess need for change, link problem ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 14 interventions and outcomes, synthesize best evidence, design a practice change, implement and evaluate change in practice, and finally, implement and maintain the practice change for sustainability (Larabee, 2004). Each of these steps will be explained in more detail in the next section as the evidence is operationalized into a proposed practice change. Application of Evidence to Practice Using EBP Model The initial step of the Model for Evidence-Based Practice Change was assessing a need for change in practice (Larabee, 2004). This process began as the author gathered anecdotal internal evidence related to the current practice of new and unprepared nurse educators teaching online courses. This was identified as a problem affecting faculty members who were new to online teaching as the primary stakeholders and students enrolled in online courses as additional stakeholders. Internal data was compared to external data and a PICOT question was written to guide the literature search. Step two of the process involved linking the problem with standardized language to help identify potential interventions and determine outcomes (Larabee, 2004). The PICOT question guided the literature search and relevant sources of evidence. As this problem addressed online education, the CoI framework and definitions provided the standardized language and framework for the project. The intervention involved designing and creating an evidence-based educational module for nurse educators new to online teaching. The overarching desired goals and expected outcomes of the module included increased faculty knowledge related to best practices in enhancing teaching presence as well as an increase in the self-reported frequency of intended use of behaviors associated with teaching presence in their online courses immediately after the completion of the module, and an increase in self-reported actual use of teaching presence behaviors 8 weeks after completing the online educational module. Based on the literature, ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 15 another expected outcome of improved teaching presence is enhanced student outcomes related to learning and satisfaction with online nursing courses, however measuring student outcomes was beyond the scope of this project. Synthesizing the best evidence was the third step in the model for evidence-based change and it included critiquing and weighing the evidence as well as assessing the feasibility and benefits related to it (Larabee, 2004). For this project the internal data was compared to external data and a systematic literature search was done based on the major variables identified in the PICOT question. A critical appraisal, evaluation and synthesis of the best evidence was completed and compiled in the synthesis table (Appendix C). The table includes a list of recommendations for faculty to improve teaching presence. These recommendations were included in the interactive educational module as well as an eight page “tip sheet” that was available to download and print prior to, or immediately after, viewing the online educational module (Refer to Appendix F). The next step, designing the practice change, began with defining the proposed change to include identifying the resources needed, the implementation plan, and the tools for measuring outcomes (Larabee, 2004). Resources required for implementation included this author’s time to develop the content for the proposed educational module, an instructional designer to assist with operationalizing the content into an interactive online module, the College of Nursing Outreach Coordinator’s time to assist with obtaining continuing professional education credits for faculty participants in the education, technology support to assist with develop the survey tools to collect and measure outcomes, and data entry and analysis assistance to interpret survey results. The implementation plan for the evidence-based module was to identify all faculty members who were currently teaching an online course and invite them to participate in the pilot 16 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE project by completing the asynchronous online educational module and the accompanying preand post-module surveys. Future implementation plans include incorporating the educational module into an orientation program for all new faculty hired to teach online. See additional implementation details under the Procedure section of Project Methods. The plan for measuring outcomes included developing online surveys with Qualtrics (2014) survey software to be completed by faculty participants prior to, immediately after, and 8 weeks following completion of the educational module. These tools are explained in detail in the upcoming Outcomes Measures section of Project Methods. The fifth step of this evidence-based practice model was implementing and evaluating the change in practice (Larabee, 2004). This step began with recruiting five faculty volunteers, including experienced content experts, to evaluate the complete educational module and surveys and provide feedback on needed clarifications or modifications. Once this review was completed, the process of implementing the pilot project with faculty members at this organization was begun. Following the pilot project and completion of any needed revisions, the sixth and final step will involve integrating the educational module into an orientation program for all nurse educators new to online teaching at this organization. The educational module will be available and highly encouraged for existing online faculty, with one continuing professional education credit provided upon completion. The process and outcomes of the education will be monitored with plans to further disseminate the results of the project. Project Methods Protection of Human Subjects ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 17 The Instructional Review Board (IRB) at Arizona State University granted approval for this project (See Appendix G). A separate IRB for the College of Nursing (CON) where the intervention was to be implemented also granted site approval (See Appendix H). Participants were fellow faculty members of the researcher. Employees are considered a vulnerable research population, therefore safeguards were included to protect the rights and welfare of all participants. Participants were invited to take part in the educational module by the researcher rather than by a director or supervisor. This was intended to avoid employees’ perceptions of risks related to job retention or advancement. Participation in the project was strictly voluntary and anonymous, and presented no foreseeable risk of harm. The survey software, Qualtrics (2014), allowed anonymous collection of data as an added measure to protect the confidentiality and privacy of respondents. Participants were prompted to create a personal identification code (the first two letters of their mother’s first name, the two digit number representing their mother’s birth month, and their favorite color). This code allowed comparison of pre- and post-module results for each participant. Informed consent for participation was obtained online prior to each survey. A written description of the study on the consent form included the expected duration of time to complete the online surveys and educational module. The consent process also explained the extent to which their confidentiality would be maintained noting that data would only be reported in aggregate. By clicking the “next” button to start the survey, participants indicated that they had read the description of the study and voluntarily consented to participate in this project. Setting and Organizational culture The setting for this intervention was a College of Nursing (CON) at a large four-year Research I public university in the southwestern United States. Nursing programs with online ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 18 courses at this CON include the Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing (PhD), Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), and Master of Science in Nursing (RN-MSN) programs. The majority of courses in the online programs are totally online (not blended or hybrid), however several courses offer hybrid formats. There are currently no undergraduate nursing courses that are offered completely online at this CON, however plans are underway to convert some undergraduate face-to-face nursing courses to online delivery in the near future. Academic programs at this CON have been recognized for excellence including identification in the top 15% among Best Graduate Nursing Schools (U.S. News & World Report, 2015). There are over 200 faculty and staff associates, and student enrollments of over 1,000 including 350 in the RN-MSN program, over 300 in the DNP program, and over 80 in the PhD or post-graduate certificate programs. Participants The target population for this project included only CON faculty members who had taught at least one prior online course and are currently teaching, or have plans to teach, another completely online course (not blended or hybrid). With the assistance of the division directors at this CON, a total of 64 faculty members were identified who met the inclusion criteria. Procedure Recruitment scripts were written for a faculty announcement (See Appendix I) to be read at a faculty meeting in the fall semester and email recruitment scripts to be used to invite faculty members to participate in the project were developed. In October, 2015, each of the 64 faculty members meeting the inclusion criteria were sent an email invitation to participate (See Appendix J), followed by a reminder email invitation (See Appendix K). Participation was explained in the email as completing an online asynchronous education module entitled Best ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 19 practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses, and estimated to take approximately 30 minutes to complete. It was also explained that before and after the module there was a short quiz as well as a Teaching Presence survey to complete. The estimated total time required to complete the educational module and initial surveys was estimated at approximately 60-70 minutes. Eight weeks following their completion of the module and surveys, faculty members were invited once again to complete a final application survey taking approximately 10 minutes to complete (See Appendix L). Refer to the color-coded project flow chart (Appendix M, Figure 3) which highlights the sequence of events for the project. Learning Objectives The learning objectives for the module included the following: 1. Describe the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework and its relationship to online teaching and learning 2. Define each of the three types of presence in the CoI Framework 3. Discuss research findings related to teaching presence in online learning 4. Identify best practice examples for each of the three components of teaching presence The interactive asynchronous online educational module presented an overview of the CoI framework, identifying its usefulness as a model to guide research in online learning or develop an effective and sustained online learning community. The importance of teaching presence was highlighted and supported with a review of research findings related to teaching presence in online courses. Evidence-based, best practice guidelines were presented for each of the three critical roles—design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction—in creating effective teaching presence in online courses. An eight page “tip sheet” (See Appendix F) was available for participants to download prior to the start of the module and once again ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 20 immediately after completing the module. This handout provided all the examples identified in the module along with additional examples, links to videos, or other useful resources to enhance teaching presence in online courses. Outcome Measures and Data Collection A pre-module demographic survey (Survey #1, See Appendix N) was developed including questions related to the faculty member’s age, degrees earned, graduate degrees in education, number of formal face-to-face courses previously taught, number of formal blended (online and face-to-face) courses previously taught, number of fully online courses previously taught, prior formal education or preparation in online teaching, and prior experience as a student in online courses. A 10-question pre- and post-test was designed to measure faculty participants’ knowledge level before and after the educational module related to teaching presence in online courses (Survey #3 and #4, Appendices P and Q). When any instrument is used to evaluate performance, it is important to ensure the validity and reliability of that instrument (Billings & Halstead, 2016). Validity refers to how well the test measures what it is intended to measure. In order to establish the content validity of the pre- and post-test, the content of each of the questions was designed to carefully align with the instructional objectives of the educational module. The multiple-choice questions were developed with each stem written in positive terms, rather than negative. The four answer options for each question were written so that the correct answer was not obvious and each answer was similar in length. All of the distractors looked to be plausible answers. Once the test was constructed, it was evaluated and confirmed by the panel of experts who reviewed the module and all questions to ensure proper alignment with the objectives. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 21 Reliability refers to “the extent to which an instrument is dependable, precise, predictable and consistent” (Billings & Halstead, 2016, p. 392). No formal or specific tests for reliability of the knowledge test were performed prior to the launch of the pilot project. I It should be noted that the same questions were used for both the pre- and post-test, so participants may have been alerted to the content from the pre-test, or become familiar with the items and more prepared to answer the same questions in the post-test. See more discussion of this in the limitations section at the end of the chapter. As previously described, the CoI model identifies components of an ideal online educational experience and provides a tool to assess the quality of teaching in online courses (Arbaugh, et al., 2008). The full CoI survey consists of 34 statements for students to rate their perceptions of each of the three types of presence. The student evaluation of each statement is based on a 5-point scale ranging from one-Strongly Disagree, to five -Strongly Agree. One subscale from the full CoI survey is the 13-item Teaching Presence Scale (TPS) which was developed, researched, and validated as a quantitative tool to measure the three components of teaching presence in online courses: instructional design and organization (6 items); facilitating discourse (8 items); and direct instruction (6 items) (Shea, Picket & Pelz, 2003; Shea, Le, and Picket, 2006). Permission was granted via email from Dr. Randy Garrison to adapt the TPS for use with instructors in order to assess faculty participants’ self-reported teaching presence. Three teaching presence surveys were developed specifically for this project based on the TPS and keeping with the five-point rating scale. The Teaching Presence Retrospective-Self Report (TPR-SR) survey (Survey #2, See Appendix O) was developed to be used prior to the educational module to measure instructor participants’ current use of teaching presence behaviors in their current online teaching. The Teaching Presence Intent-Self Report (TPI-SR) ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 22 survey (Survey #5, See Appendix R) was developed for administration immediately following the educational module to determine the instructor participants’ intent to engage in best practices for online teaching presence based on information they received in the intervention. The final survey, the Teaching Presence Application-Self Report (TPA-SR) survey (Survey #6, See Appendix S) was developed for administration 8 weeks after completing the module intervention to measure application of best practices for online teaching presence. In order to obtain information on additional self-reported teaching presence behaviors demonstrated in their most recent online teaching, additional best practice examples identified in the educational module and “tip sheet” (See Appendix F) were added to the TPA-SR s survey with instructions to “select all that apply”. None of the survey instruments used in the project have been previously used in research, therefore, there were no reliability and validity results to report. Contributing to this author’s confidence in developing and using tools based on the CoI were the CoI instrument’s excellent internal consistency, face validity and construct validity results established in numerous previous studies (Arbaugh, et al., 2009; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Swan, et al., 2008). For example, researchers have demonstrated Cronbach’s coefficient alphas of .96 to .97 using the full CoI instrument (Bush, et al., 2009; Hosler & Arend, 2012) and .96 to .97 reliability estimates for the teaching presence subscale (Arbaugh, 2007; Diaz, et al., 2010; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Reliability coefficients for the Teaching Presence components have been reported as instructional design and organization (α = .90 to α = .97), facilitating discourse (α = .93 to α = .94), and direct instruction (α = .89) (Arbaugh and Hwang, 2006; Shea et al., 2006). Project Budget ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 23 There was no formal budget available to implement this project. The resources necessary for implementation of this project included this student author’s time to review the literature and develop the educational module and surveys, and the time of two CON support staff (one instructional designer who spent approximately 30 hours on the project, and one computer programmer who spent approximately one hour on the continuing education certificate). The CON Office of Professional and Community Engagement provided this support staff time and computer resources. No new or additional resources were needed or purchased to complete the project. Upon completion of this project, the educational module will be included in the CON Continuing Nursing Education online Course Catalog in order to offer this module to members of the community for continuing professional development. The module will also become part of the orientation program for new faculty members teaching online courses at the CON. Participants in the project were all faculty members currently employed at this organization. Their participation in this project was voluntary, with no additional financial compensation. Those who completed the educational module were offered a certificate with one continuing nursing education credit upon completion of the module and post-module surveys. Project Results This project was a pilot evaluation of an evidence-based educational intervention. Five questions were the basis of the evaluation. 1. How did participants’ knowledge level change from pretest to posttest? 2. How did prior teaching presence behaviors before the module (TPR-SR) compare to self-reported intent to perform teaching presence behaviors (TPI-SR) 3. How did teaching presence behaviors change over time as self-reported in the TPR-SR survey before compared to the TPA-SR survey after the educational module? ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 24 4. How did self-reported frequency of intent to perform teaching presence behaviors following the educational module (TPI-SR) compare to actual teaching presence behaviors reported prior to the module (TPR-SR)? 5. Which additional teaching presence behaviors did participants report demonstrating in their online teaching during the 8 weeks between the educational module and the TPASR survey? Data collection Survey data were collected online using Qualtrics (2014) software. A total of 20 faculty members (N=64, response rate of 31%) participated in some aspect of the project. Eighteen participants completed the pre-module demographics, TPR-SR, pre-test surveys and the educational module. Of those 18 participants, 14 were able to be matched from the 20 participants who completed the post-module TPI-SR survey and post-test. Ten participants completed the 8 week follow-up TPA-SR survey; of those, 9 were positively linked to the premodule surveys, and 7 were positively linked to all previous surveys based on matching personal identification codes for all three survey events. The personal identification code for one participant on the final TPA-SR survey did not match any other codes on previous surveys, so that case was not included in the final analysis. Demographics of Entire Sample All faculty members at this organization who had previously taught online and were currently teaching an online course (N=64) were invited to participate in this project. Of the 18 respondents who completed the demographic survey, 6 (33%) were between the ages of 45-54 years, 10 (56%) were between 55-64 years, and 2 (11%) participants were 65 years of age or older. The educational degrees earned by the participants included Master of Science (MS) (n=6, ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 25 33%), Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) (n=9, 50%), Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) (n=4, 22%), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)(n=9, 50%), Masters Business Administration (MBA) (n=1, 6%), and Masters in Public Health (MPH) (n=1, 6%). In addition, 2 participants (11%) also have graduate degrees in education. Several of the participants reported more than one graduate degree. Prior teaching experience with face-to-face courses ranged from no prior experience (n=3, 17%), to teaching 1-3 courses (n =4, 22%), 4-6 courses (n =2, 11%), or more than 10 courses (n =9, 50%). Prior teaching experience in formal blended courses (includes online and face-to-face courses), were identified as no prior experience (n =5, 28%), 1-3 courses (n =3, 17%), 4-6 courses (n =3, 15%), 7-10 courses (n =1, 6%), and more than 10 blended courses taught in the past (n =6, 33%). All survey participants had taught fully online courses in the past with the number of prior online courses taught ranging from 1-3 courses (n =5, 28%), 4-6 courses (n =3, 17%), 7-10 courses (n =2, 11%), and more than 10 online courses (n =8, 44%). Half of the participants (n =9) have been students in formal online education programs in the past, with 3 years as the average length of their programs. The participants identified their prior preparation for online teaching as informal self-study (n =7, 39%), on-the-job training (n =12, 67%), mentoring (n =11, 61%), continuing education program (n =7, 39%), educational conference (n =1, 6%), online teaching training program (n =4, 22%), graduate program education (n =4, 22%), and no specific training (n =4, 22%). Half of the participants (n =9) have been a student in a formal online education program in the past, with 3 years as the average length of their program. The participants identified their prior preparation for online teaching as the following: informal self-study (n =7, 39%), on-thejob training (n =12, 67%), mentoring (n =11, 61%), continuing education program (n =7, 39%), ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 26 educational conference (n =1, 6%), online teaching training program (n =4, 22%), graduate program education (n =4, 22%), and no specific training (n =4, 22%). Current teaching roles and responsibilities of the participants were identified as either leader faculty/course chairperson (n =16, 89%), or section faculty/teaching team member (n =2, 11%). The majority of participants (n =16, 89%) have prior experience developing a course in the following formats: online (n =15, 94%), blended (n =10, 63%), or face-to-face (n =12, 75%). Demographic Data of Subsample The demographics data is further drilled down to include only the subsample (n =7) who completed the entire project and all surveys. The ages of the subsample were 45-54 years (n =2, 29%), 55-64 years (n =4, 57%) and 65 years and above (n =1, 14%). Educational degrees ranged from MS (n =3, 43%), MSN (n =2, 29%), DNP (n =1, 14%), PhD (n =4, 57%), MPH (n =1, 14%). In addition, 1 participant in the subsample (14%) also had a graduate degree in education. Prior teaching experience in formal face-to-face courses in the past by the subsample included equal numbers of participants (n =2, 29%) in three categories, no experience, 4-6 courses, and more than 10 face-to-face courses in the past. One participant (14%) indicated experience with 1-3 face-to-face courses. The majority of the subsample had no prior experience teaching blended courses (n =4, 57%), however 2 participants (29%) had taught 1-3 blended courses, and 1 participant (14%) had taught 4-6 blended courses in the past. Prior experience teaching fully online formal courses ranged from 1-3 courses (n =1, 14%), 4-6 courses (n =2, 29%), 7-10 courses (n =1, 14%), and more than 10 courses (n =2, 29%). Similar to the overall participant sample, nearly half of the subsample (n =3, 43%) had been online students themselves in the past for an average of 3.5 years in their programs. Nearly ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 27 half of the subsample (n =3, 43%) identified no specific training in preparation to teach online, while the remainder acknowledged training as informal self-study (n =4, 57%), on-the-job training (n =5, 71%), mentoring (n =6, 86%), continuing education program (n =2, 29%), online teaching training program (n =1, 14%), and graduate program education (n =1, 14%). The vast majority of the subsample (n =6, 86%) are currently lead faculty members or course chairpersons, while the remaining participant is a section faculty or teaching team member. Five participants (71%) have developed an online course in the past, one participant (14%) has developed a blended course, and 3 participants (43%) have developed at least one face-to-face course in the past. Data Analysis and Findings SPSS statistics software (version 23) was used to perform all statistical analyses. Because of the small sample size, the nonparametric alternative to the paired samples t-test, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test, was used to analyze all the data. The three assumptions required for using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test were met: 1) the data analyzed was continuous and at the ordinal level, 2) the independent variable consisted of matched pairs, meaning that the same subjects were present in both groups and measured on two occasions with the same dependent variable, and 3) the total sample size is more than five pairs (Kellar & Kelvin, 2013). Results 1. How Did Knowledge Change? A sample of 14 participants completed the pre- and post-test and could be positively matched by identification codes. The pre-test score results were compared to the post-test score results in order to determine if there was a change in the test scores from before the module to 28 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE after. Pre-test scores ranged from 1 to 9 points out of 10. Post-test scores ranged from 5 to 10 out of 10. The findings indicated that the post-test scores (Mdn= 7, SD=1.406) were statistically significantly higher (z= -3.132, p<.002) than the pre-test scores (Mdn=4, SD=2.176). 2. How Did Prior Teaching Presence Compare to Teaching Presence Intent? In order to evaluate if there was a change in self-reported frequency of intent to perform teaching presence behaviors following the educational module, the Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare the results from the Teaching Presence Retrospective-Self Report (TPRSR), completed prior to the module to the Teaching Presence Intent-Self Report (TPI-SR) survey which was completed immediately after the module. A scale of 0 to 5 was used with 0=None Applicable, 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Always. In comparing the median scores on the TPR-SR to the TPI-SR, the following 6 items in the instrument were found to be statistically significant: Question 1: Clearly communicate important course topics (z= -2.00, p<.046), Question 5: Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics (z= -2.99, p<.003), Question 6: Help guide the class towards understanding course topics (z= -2.449, p<.14), Question 7: Help keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue (z= -2.449, p<.14), Question 10: Reinforce the development of a sense of community among course participants (z= -2.530, p<.011), and lastly, Question 11: Help focus discussion on relevant issues (z= -2.333, p<.020). The statistically significant negative z statistic for each of these items identified indicates that reported retrospective scores were lower than intended teaching presence behaviors. Refer to Table 1 for all of the results. Table 1 Comparison between Teaching Presence Retrospective-Self Report (TPR-SR) and Teaching Presence Intent-Self Report (TPI-SR) TPR-SR TPI-SR z p 29 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Question 1: Clearly communicate important course topics Median 5.00 Median 5.00 Score -2.00 value .046* Question 2: Clearly communicate important course goals 5.00 5.00 -1.63 .102 Question 3: Provide clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities 4.50 5.00 -1.89 .059 Question 4: Clearly communicate important due dates/time frames for learning activities 5.00 5.00 -1.41 .157 Question 5: Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics 3.00 4.00 -2.99 .003* Question 6: Help guide the class towards understanding course topics 4.50 5.00 -2.449 .014* Question 7: Help keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue 4.00 5.00 -2.449 .014* Question 8: Help keep course participants on task 4.00 5.00 -1.890 .059 Question 9: Encourage course participants to explore new concepts in the course 4.50 5.00 -1.000 .317 Question 10: Reinforce the development of a sense of community among course participants 4.00 5.00 -2.530 .011* Question 11: Help focus discussion on relevant issues 4.00 5.00 -2.333 .020* Question 12: Provide feedback that helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses 4.50 5.00 -1.518 .129 Question 13: Provide feedback in a timely fashion 4.00 5.00 -1.897 .058 Note: *= p<.05 3. How Did Teaching Presence Behaviors Change Over Time? The Teaching Presence Application-Self Report (TPR-SR), was completed 8 weeks after the educational module to measure the frequency of best practices for online teaching presence. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test was also used to compare the frequency of current teaching presence behavior reported in the TPA-SR to the Teaching Presence Retrospective-Self 30 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Report (TPR-SR) completed just prior to the module. Both surveys have identical items and only the titles were changed for clarity in reporting results. See Table 2 for medians and pvalues. No significant differences were seen in the median scores of self-reported teaching presence behaviors before, as compared to 8 weeks after, completing the educational module. Table 2 Comparison between Teaching Presence Retrospective-Self Report (TPR-SR) and Teaching Presence Application-Self Report (TPA-SR) TPR-SR TPA-SR z Median Median score Question 1: I clearly communicated important course topics 5.00 5.00 -.577 p value .564 Question 2: I clearly communicated important course goals 5.00 5.00 -.378 .705 Question 3: I provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities 4.50 4.00 -.447 .655 Question 4: I clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities 5.00 5.00 -.577 .564 Question 5: I identified areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics 3.00 4.00 -1.65 .098 Question 6: I helped guide the class towards understanding course topics 4.50 5.00 -1.342 .180 Question 7: I helped keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue 4.00 4.00 .000 1.00 Question 8: I helped keep course participants on task 4.00 5.00 -.632 .527 Question 9: I encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in the course 4.50 4.50 -.447 .655 Question 10: I reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants 4.00 4.00 -.447 .655 Question 11: I helped focus discussion on relevant issues 4.00 4.00 .000 1.00 Question 12: I provided feedback that helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses 4.50 5.00 -.707 .480 31 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Question 13: I provided feedback in a timely fashion 4.00 5.00 -1.0 .317 Note: *=p<.05 4. How Did Intent Compare to Actual Teaching Presence Behaviors? To evaluate for changes in self-reported frequency of teaching presence behaviors (TPASR) 8 weeks following the module compared to the participants’ intent to perform teaching presence behaviors following the educational module (TPI-SR), the Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used. Of the 13 evaluation questions, one item was found to be statistically significant at the .05 level (p = .046): Reinforce the development of a sense of community among course participants. The median score for this item on the TPI-SR was 5 (Always), while the median score of their actual application of this behavior was 4 (Frequently). Table 3 Comparison between Teaching Presence Intent-Self Report (TPI-SR) and Teaching Presence Application-Self Report (TPA-SR) Question 1: Clearly communicate important course topics TPI-SR Median 5.00 TPA-SR Median 5.00 z score .000 p value 1.00 Question 2: Clearly communicate important course goals 5.00 5.00 -1.00 .317 Question 3: Provide clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities 5.00 4.00 -1.732 .083 Question 4: Clearly communicate important due dates/time frames for learning activities 5.00 5.00 .000 1.00 Question 5: Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics 4.00 4.00 .000 1.00 Question 6: Help guide the class towards understanding course topics 5.00 5.00 -1.00 .317 Question 7: Help keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue 5.00 4.00 -1.342 .180 32 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Question 8: Help keep course participants on task 5.00 5.00 -.447 .655 Question 9: Encourage course participants to explore new concepts in the course 5.00 4.50 .000 1.000 Question 10: Reinforce the development of a sense of community among course participants 5.00 4.00 -2.00 .046* Question 11: Help focus discussion on relevant issues 5.00 4.00 -.707 .480 Question 12: Provide feedback that helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses 5.00 5.00 -.577 .564 Question 13: Provide feedback in a timely fashion 5.00 5.00 -1.00 .317 Note: *=p<.05 5. Which Additional Teaching Presence Behaviors Were Demonstrated? Table 4 highlights the additional teaching presence behaviors reported during the 8 weeks following the module in the final TPA-SR survey. This data was manually counted from the Qualtrics (2014) database as only participants who completed the TPR-SR and the TPA-SR were included in this analysis (n=9). In addition to the items identified in Table 4, one participant reported 2 virtual office hours each week using Adobe Connect. Table 4 Additional Teaching Presence Reported in Online Teaching 8 Weeks After Module Behavior Responses % Reporting Design course for easy navigation 6 67% Send welcome email to students 8 89% Record introductory video to introduce yourself and the course 4 44% Provide online resources 8 89% Include planned synchronous activities 5 56% Ensure course contains detailed orientation 7 78% 33 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Include relevant assignments with rubrics and samples 8 89% Clearly communicate course topics and goals 8 89% Clearly communicate course requirements 9 100% Clearly communicate how to participate in discussions and all learning activities 9 100% Clearly communicate all due dates 9 100% Set the climate for learning to foster development of a sense of community 9 100% Ice breaker or “getting-to-know-each-other” forum for students to introduce themselves, find commonalities, and build relationships 6 67% Encourage students to be comfortable participating 7 78% Respond to student questions or needs 9 100% Establish netiquette 8 89% Use announcements frequently 8 89% Introduce each week or new module with an overview 6 67% Send reminders of upcoming activities or due dates 5 56% Keep course calendar updated 6 67% Provide useful information from a variety of sources 8 89% Give fair individual attention and feedback 9 100% Encourage, acknowledge, and reinforce student contributions 9 100% Identify areas of agreement and disagreement in discussions 8 89% Draw in participants and prompt discussions 5 56% Model asking questions in discussion 4 44% Help focus discussion on relevant issues 7 78% 34 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Help keep students engaged in productive dialog and on task 8 89% Encourage exploring new concepts in the course (“think out loud”) 7 78% Tie discussions and follow-up learning activities together 7 78% Summarize discussion 7 78% Discussion The focus of this pilot project was to examine if an educational module on best practices to enhance teaching presence in online courses would lead to a difference in nurse educators’ self-reported teaching presence behaviors. Based on the results of this pilot project, it appeared that there was no significant change in the frequency of teaching presence behaviors 8 weeks after completion of the educational module. There was a statistically significant increase in the participants’ intent to perform 6 of the teaching presence behaviors following the educational module, with the most significant change noted in the item: Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics. Of note, this was the item with the overall lowest reported behavior retrospectively as well as the lowest rated intent. The one item for which participants reported a higher intention than they actually performed was Reinforce development of a sense of community among course participants. Overall, the self-reported scores for each of the behaviors in the TPR-SR completed prior to the module were already in the high range. Of the 13 items, 3 items had median scores of 5 indicating the faculty members Always performed the teaching presence behavior in prior online teaching. Five items had median scores of 4 indicating Frequently, and 4 items fell between Always and Frequently categories with median scores of 4.5. Only 1 item had a median score of 35 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 3 representing Sometimes. The already high self-reported teaching presence scores prior to the module may indicate less perceived room for improvement in this group of experienced instructors. The final TPA-SR survey also included a list of teaching presence behaviors found in the literature to be important to student success and motivation in online courses. These behaviors were not part of the 13 item adapted teaching presence surveys, however based on the frequency of self-reported use of these additional behaviors in this pilot project, it could be suggested that teaching presence is a broader construct that encompasses a larger set of behaviors than those identified on the TPS instrument. Limitations As with all projects, there are limitations. Because the subsample in this project was small (n=7), the low statistical power decreases the chances of identifying a true effect of the educational module, limits conclusions that can be drawn, and weakens the overall reliability of the results. In addition to limiting the power of the study, the sample size was also too small for standard test reliability measures for the pre- and post-test. The two tests had identical questions, which may have resulted in participants being alerted to the test content they were reviewing in the module. Future use of this evaluation method may include rewriting the post-test questions to ensure that the content is tested with similar, but not identical, questions. In that case, the same level of difficulty would be maintained, with items differing only in the wording of the questions. Another option would be to change the order of the response alternatives, which was not done in this pilot, but could potentially reduce any practice effect acquired from answering the identical questions previously. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 36 Moreover, the number of participants who did not complete the entire project, or could not be positively matched between the 3 separate survey administration times, was another limitation. The personal identification codes were made by the participants each answering three questions (first two initials of mother’s first name, two digits of mother’s birth month, and favorite color). This proved to be problematic when not all codes could be matched between surveys and led to participant results being eliminated from analysis. The anonymous survey with no other methods to match participants between the three surveys limited the sample size. Another limitation of the project was the use of teaching presence surveys (TPR-SR, TPISR, and TPA-SR) that were developed specifically for this project and not previously used or validated. This was the first known project to use these three teaching presence surveys to evaluate instructors’ self-reported teaching presence behaviors over time, as well as measure their intent and actual follow through in performing teaching presence behaviors following the educational module. These surveys were adapted from the Teaching Presence Scale (TPS) instrument that has demonstrated validity and reliability previously in large studies (Shea, Picket & Pelz, 2003; Shea, et al., 2006). Additional studies with larger sample sizes may seek reliability and validity confirmation of the adapted surveys. Lastly, the methodological limitations associated with potential self-report response bias is acknowledged. Social desirability is viewed as “the tendency on behalf of the subjects to deny socially undesirable traits and to claim socially desirable ones, and the tendency to say things which places the speaker in a favorable light” (Nederhof, 1985, p. 264.). Thomas and Kilmann (1975) studied the social desirability variable with self-reported behavior and found that participants’ self-reported ratings of behaviors were strongly correlated with the social desirability of the behavior being measured (Thomas & Kilmann, 1975). The educational ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 37 module in this pilot project was titled, Best Practices in Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses. This title alone may have signaled participants to the “social desirability” of teaching presence behaviors, and therefore, could potentially be a source of bias as participants may tend to want to respond to survey items in a way that makes them look as favorable as possible (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Future Research Future studies using the adapted surveys from this pilot project might also be expanded to include use of the TPS administered to students and comparisons of students’ evaluations of their instructors’ teaching presence to the instructors’ self-evaluations. Continued studies to identify additional methods to enhance teaching presence or evaluate changes in instructor teaching presence are encouraged to strengthen communities of inquiry in online learning. 38 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE CHAPTER 3: ORGANIZATIONAL/HEALTH POLICY IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY The purpose of the chapter is to discuss the impact of this pilot project within this organization, as well as implications in terms of leadership, financial costs, and sustainability. Gaps that were identified will be reviewed. The chapter will conclude with the plan and recommendations for future application of the educational module. Project Impact It is difficult to measure the overall impact of this pilot project with the faculty and students of this organization. No significant differences were found in the self-reported teaching presence behaviors 8 weeks after completing the educational module in the small sample who participated in this pilot project, however, the initiative led to changes in the organizational environment. The module developed in this project will become a part of the orientation program for future CON faculty members teaching online. Other organizations may consider using the online educational module as it will now be available for community members to view for continuing professional education credit. Organizations that employ faculty members who have not had prior formal education for online teaching may choose to use this as a resource to develop their online faculty members. The “tip sheet” of best practices for enhancing teaching presence in online courses may be used as a reference by faculty members who completed the module to influence their teaching presence behaviors in the future. Leadership Implication Some impacts of this project are not easily measureable. For instance, there were personal impacts for this author associated with the visibility of the project related to online learning. Faculty colleagues and leaders of this organization may now view this author as one with expertise in online education and continuing education development. The project could ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 39 potentially open up new possibilities for innovation, influence or leadership in nursing academic settings. This author developed increased collaboration and networking skills, embracing the challenges that came with working in partnership with many different people to complete this project. The author served as the subject matter expert and developed the evidence-based content for the module. The instructional designer who completed the software programming for the online interactive educational module was very responsive to changes or editing required throughout the design and development of the project. The unit’s Information Technology Manager created the online link for the educational module, and an administrative associate provided the link for the continuing professional education credit and certificate of completion. The College of Nursing Outreach Coordinator assisted with the process of obtaining continuing professional education credits for faculty participants. The process of applying for and receiving the continuing professional education took longer than anticipated, resulting in a minor delay in starting the project with faculty participants. Financial Implications According to research data compiled by Chapman Alliance (2010) the average cost per finished hour of an instructor led online module is equal to $5,934. That figure represents time spent by all members of the team including the writers, instructional designers, and subject matter experts throughout the entire development process. The resources used to develop this project included this student author’s time, estimated at roughly 120 hours to review and compile the literature, create the content for the educational module, write the tip sheet and develop all surveys. Two CON support staff members also contributed their time and expertise to the project. One instructional designer spent approximately 40 hours on the project, and one ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 40 computer programmer spent approximately one hour answering questions related to the survey software and to managing the continuing education certificate. The support of these two staff members was provided by the CON Office of Professional and Community Engagement at no cost to the author. The time spent by subject matter experts reviewing content was roughly estimated as 15 hours. The time of professors supervising and providing statistical consultation as part of a doctoral project requirement was not included in the figure. In all, the estimated cost of creating the module and getting all the required approvals and reviews for the continuing education credit would equate to roughly $5,740. No new or additional resources were purchased to complete the project. Policy Impact and Sustainability The educational module will be available for use as part of the orientation program for new faculty members teaching online courses at the CON. There is no written policy requiring new or current employees to view the module at this time, however supervising faculty coordinators have been made aware of the availability of the module and have expressed interested in encouraging its use with new and current online faculty members. This educational module will also be included in the CON Continuing Nursing Education online Course Catalog in order to offer it to members of the community for continuing professional development for a fee. No additional resources are anticipated to sustain this educational module for use in the immediate future, however updates to the module content may eventually be needed as evidence in online teaching presence evolves. Gaps Identified and Implications for further Application There is a wealth of research on the topic of online education and the Community of Inquiry framework for online learning environments. Future educational modules on enhancing 41 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE social presence or cognitive presence could be developed that would complement this teaching presence module and create a comprehensive educational experience related to the Community of Inquiry framework for nursing faculty members teaching online courses. In addition to the educational module being used for new faculty orientation, this module will provide for ongoing continuing professional development of experienced online faculty, consistent with the literature noting a gap in faculty development in this area and a desire for ongoing support (Kosak et al., 2004; Ray, 2009). Ultimately, there is potential for enhanced student outcomes and satisfaction in all online courses at this CON as faculty incorporate pedagogically sound educational strategies and modalities enhancing online teaching presence. Conclusion The purpose of this project was to enhance nurse educators’ teaching presence behaviors in online courses. Relevant evidence was appraised and synthesized to develop an online asynchronous educational module on best practices for incorporating teaching presence behaviors. As the most widely quoted research theory in online learning, the CoI framework provides valuable insight into the behaviors that support a positive online educational experience (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Teaching presence and its inherent critical components of instructional design and organization, facilitation of discourse, and direct instruction (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007) are critical in facilitating success in online education. The translation of research findings into an educational module addressed the lack of formal faculty preparation for online teaching in this setting. Prior research reported the teaching presence component was a significant predictor of students’ affective learning, cognition, and motivation and the prime catalyst for establishing and maintaining both social and cognitive presence. The external ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 42 evidence provided the focus for a literature search that ultimately pointed to the need for educator preparation and resulted in this evidence-based pilot project. The interactive educational module on teaching presence was pilot tested with nursing faculty members who had taught at least one online course previously and were currently teaching an online course. This was the first known project to use the Teaching Presence Surveys (TPR-SR, TPI-SR, and TPA- SR) to evaluate instructors’ self-reported teaching presence behaviors over time, as well as their intent and actual follow-through in performing teaching presence behaviors after the educational module. Despite the statistically significant higher levels of participants’ intent to perform 6 of the teaching presence behaviors following the educational module, there was no significant change in the frequency of teaching presence behaviors self-reported by participants 8 weeks after completion of the educational module. Overall, the self-reported scores for each of the teaching presence behaviors on the surveys was in the high range, offering little perceived room for improvement in this group of experienced instructors. 43 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE References Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541571.pdf Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2015), Grade level: Tracing online education in the United States. Retrieved from: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9 wsRonuqvBZKXonjHpfsX56%2BsqUaa2lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ATcZhI%2BSLDw EYGJlv6SgFSbfBMaZ00bgMWxE%3D American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2014a). 2013-2014 Enrollment and Graduations in Baccalaureate and Graduate Programs in Nursing. Washington, DC. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2014b). Nursing faculty shortage fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/FacultyShortageFS.pdf American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2014c). Arizona Nursing Education at a Glance. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/government-affairs/resources/Arizona1.pdf Anderson, T. (2000). Teaching in an online learning context. In Anderson, T. and Elloumi, F. (Eds.) Theory and practice of online learning. (pp. 273-294). Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An Empirical Verification of the Community of Inquiry Framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73-85. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 44 the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133-136. Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 9-21. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating online teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217-232. Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34-61. Billings, D. M., & Halstead, J. A. (2016). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty. (5th Ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier. Blignaut, A. S., & Trollip, S. R. (2003). Measuring faculty participation in asynchronous discussion forums. Journal of Education for Business, 78(6), 347-353. Boettcher, J.V. (2006). How many students are just right in a web course? Designing for Learing. Retreived from http://www.designingforlearning.info/services/writing/number.htm Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R.M. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Bush, R., Castelli, P., Lowry, P., & Cole, M. (2010). The importance of teaching presence in online and hybrid classrooms. Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership, 15(1), 7-13. Retreived from http://broadband.uwex.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Wausau_Importance-of-teaching-presence.pdf ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 45 Chapman, B. (2010). How Long Does it Take to Create Learning? [Research Study]. Published by Chapman Alliance LLC. www.chapmanalliance.com Chen, P.S., Lambert, D.A., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008 Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE bulletin, 49, 3-6. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Retrieved from www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/disrupting_college.pdf Conceicao, S.C.O. (2006). Faculty lived experiences in the online environment. Adult Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory, 57(1), 26-45. Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31-44. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189. Cuellar, N. (2002). The transition from classroom to online teaching. Nursing Forum, 37(3), 513. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 46 Díaz, S. R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 22-30. Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260. Du, J. Liu, Y, & Brown, R. L. (2020). The key elements of online learning communities. In Management Association (Ed.). (2010). Web-based education: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications (pp. 119-132). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?qurl=http%3A%2F%2Fliterati.credoreference.co m%2Fcontent%2Fentry%2Figiwbe%2Fthe_key_elements_of_online_learning_communit ies%2F0 Finegold, A. R., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 201-215. Fish, W.W. & Wickersham, L.E. (2009). Best practices for online instructors: Reminders. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10(3), 279-284. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157172. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 47 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. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36. Gawlinski, A., & Rutledge, D. (2008). Selecting a model for evidence‐based practice changes: A practical approach. AACN advanced critical care, 19(3), 291-300. Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/712/1303 Halstead, J.A. (2007). Nurse educator competencies: Creating an evidence-based practice for nurse educators. New York, NY: National League for Nursing. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19-42. Hodges, A. L., & McGuinness, T. (2014). Improving communication in distance-accessible advanced practice nursing courses via instructor presence. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(8), 479-482. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20140725-03 Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49(3), 217-229. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). Does the degree of campus “wiredness" matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9, 49. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 48 Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2015). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2015 edition, Bloomington, IN: Author. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ Institute of Medicine. (2011). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2005). Collegiality and community-building as a means for sustaining student persistence in the computer-mediated asynchronous learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3). Jackson, L.C., Jones, S.J., & Rodriguez, R.C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 78-96. Johnson, A. E. (2008). A nursing faculty’s transition to teaching online. Nursing Educaiton Perpectives, 29(1), 17-22. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808-820. Kellar, S.P. & Kelvin, E.A. (2013). Munro’s statistical metods for health care research (6th ed). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Keramidas, C.G., Ludlow, B.L., Collins, B.C., & Baird, C.M. (2007). Saving your sanity when teaching in an online environment: Lessons learned. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(1), 28-29. Kosak, L., Manning, D., Dobson, E., Rogerson, L., Cotnam, S., Colaric, S., et al. (2004). Prepared to teach online? Perspectives of faculty in the University of North Carolina system. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VII(III). Retrieved from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall73/kosak73.html ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 49 Larrabee, J. H. (2004). Advancing quality improvement through using the best evidence to change practice. Journal of nursing care quality, 19(1), 10-13. Lear, J. (2010). Instructor presence in online distance classes. In USA Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Web-Based education: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?qurl=http%3A%2F%2Fliterati.credoreference.co m%2Fcontent%2Fentry%2Figiwbe%2Finstructor_presence_in_online_distance_classes %2F0 Lee, D. Paulus, T.M., Loboda, I., Phipps, G., Wyatt, T.H., Myers, C.R., & Mixer, S.J. (2010). A faculty development program for nurse educators learning to teach online. TechTrends 54(6). 20-28. Major, C. H. (2010). Do virtual professors dream of electric students? University faculty experiences with online distance education. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 21542208. Means, B., Toyama, T., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, D. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP). (2010). The impact of the nursing faculty shortage on nurse education and practice. Retrieved from http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/nacnep/Reports/ninthreport.pdf Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European journal of social psychology, 15(3), 263-280. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 50 Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace (Vol. 12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. John Wiley & Sons. Prasad, D. V. (2009). Empirical study of teaching presence and critical thinking in asynchronous discussion forums. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(11), 3-26. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Qualtrics, L. L. C. (2014). Qualtrics software. Ray, J. (2009). Faculty perspective: Training and course development for the online classroom. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 263-276. Richardson, J.C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 68-88. Robinia, K. A., & Anderson, M. L. (2010). Online teaching efficacy of nurse faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing, 26(3), 168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.02.006 Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109. Rosswurm, M. A., & Larrabee, J. H. (1999). A model for change to evidence‐based practice. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 317-322. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 51 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(3), 543-553. Shea, P. J., Frederickson, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, 4, 279-312. Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2001). Measures of learning effectiveness in the SUNY Learning Network. Online education, 2, 31-54. Shea, P. J., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense oflearning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190. Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61-80. Shea, S. 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. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 11(3). 127-153 Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767-779. Sheridan, K., Kelly, M. A., & Bentz, D. T. (2012). A follow-up study of the indicators of teaching presence critical to students in online courses. In Zehra, A, & Garrison, R. D. (Eds). ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 52 Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice. Hershey, PA: ICI Global. Swan, K., Garrison, D.R., & Richardson, J.C. (2009). A contstructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C.R., (Ed.) Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. Ementor, 2(24), 1-12. Sword T.S. (2012). The transition to online teaching as experienced by nurse educators. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33 (4), 269-271. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 741-752. Weimer, M. (2015, March 11). Three questions to reframe the online learning conversation. Faculty Focus: Higher Ed Teaching Strategies From MAGNA Publications. Retrieved from http:// http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/threequestions-reframe-online-learning-conversation/ Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discourse. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 21(2), 1-25. Zhu, E., Payette, P., & DeZure, D. (2003). An introduction to teaching online. CRLT Occasional Papers. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Zsohar, H., & Smith, J.A. (2008). Transition from the classroom to the web: Successful strategies for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(1), 23. Zungolo, E. (2004). Faculty preparation: Is clinical specialization a benefit or a deterrent to quality nursing education? The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 35, 19-23. 53 54 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix A Figure 1. Community of Inquire Model Diagram Reprinted with permission of D. R. Garrison from www.communitiesofinquiry.com 55 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix B Evaluation Table Citation Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of educators online Funding: no information given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA Conceptual Design/Method Framework Transaction Design: al distance Empirical and theory quantitative (Moore & methods Kearsley, 1996) Purpose: and Explore II & Concept of IP in an OL communica- learning iton environment in immediacy. relation to (Mehrabian, STU AL, 1971) COG, MOT Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions Sample & Definitions: - II=INSTR interactionDemographics: N=699 STUs - PRES=“visibility” of n=377 STUs completed INSTR perceived by surveys (54% RR) STU 70.3% (n=265) FG 29.7% (n=112) MG Variables: 18.8% (n=71) 1st OL - PV1-II course - PV2-IP 81.2% (n=306) previous - CV1 -STU AL OL experience - CV2-STU COG 37.5% ( n=141) GS - CV3-STU MOT 62.5% ( n=236) UGS Inclusion criteria: UGSs or GSs in 10-week OL summer 2008 semester courses asked to participate in voluntary survey Exclusion criteria: N/A- only those eligible were asked to volunteer Attrition rate: N/A, only a one-time survey Res. Questions: 1. Is there sig. correlation b/w perceived II and perceived IP in OL classes? 2. Will II & IP explainsig. Variance in STU affective learning in OL classes? 3. Will II & IP explain significant variance in STU cognition inOL classes? 4. Will II & IP explain sign. variance in STU motivation OL classes? 5. & 6 not related to my PICOT Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity 5 instruments: II – The Verbal Immediacy Scale - 17 item Likert-type scale (reliability coefficients ranging from .77-.94 and α ranges from .84.90 in previous studies) IP – The Teaching Presence Scale – 7point scale from SA to SDis (reliability coefficients .98, .97 & .93 in one study, another study established construct validity with coefficients of .90, .94, and .89. F/u study reported Cronbach alpha of .97) AL-Six-Scale Measure of AL on continuum. (report prior study splithalf reliability of .98, other studies used scale with reliability scores ranging b/w .82 and .98) COG-Learning Loss Scale (reports mod. Strong (r=-.50, ;<.001) indications of concurrent validity) MOT-Motivation Scale Data collected from a single-administered OL instrument during the 7th week of a 10-week OL Data Analysis Study Findings Decision for Use in Practice RQ1- Bivariate Level of evidence: VI low levelMajor Finding: correlation analysis to IP found to be sig. predictor because Descriptive, test r/s b/w II and IP of AL, COG, and MOT correlational, no randomization and measure (but II was not sig. Limitations: magnitude of any predictor). Noted that IP - Random selection and assignment possible connection. was broader construct not used. with more ways of - Self-reporting nature of RQs 2,3,4 – Multiple influencing STU AL than measurement instrument hinders regression analysis to II. ability to control errors and bias in determine degree to Found stat. sig. + r/s b/w II participant responses. with PVs might & IP Strengths/Application to Practice: explain variance in - Support other studies that TP AL, COG, & MOT Other Findings: impacts STU AL, COG, and MOT, Linear combination of II supporting need for TNG FAC to ↑ RQs 5 & 6 – factoral and IP is a stat. sig. IP in OL courses ANOVA to evaluate predictor of STU AL - Suggestions to establish IPif any evidence that (56% of variance methodical design prior to course means reported II accounted for by linear onset, engage STUs through differ by demographic combo), COG (46%), & productive discourse & direction, data (not part of my MOT (38%). identify areas of agreement and PICOT) +correlation b/w the disagreement, seek to reach following: consensus & understanding, Boneffoni Procedure II and STU AL. encourage, acknowledge, reinforce used to control for II and STU COG, STU contributions, set climate for overall Type I error II and STU MOT learning, draw in participants, present content & questions, focus STUs in asynchronous D on specific issues, prompt D, and courses reporting sig. assess efficacy of process, lower IP, and STU in summarize D, confirm synchronous courses understanding, Dx misperceptions, reporting sig. higher IP inject knowledge from diverse sources, respond to STUs TECH concerns, establish “netiquette” prior to course starting. - Synchronous courses increased IP over asynchronous TP Tool has strong Cronbach’s ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 56 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data Analysis course (reported Cronbach’s alpha of .95). Bush, R. et al., (2010) The importance of teaching presence in online and hybrid classrooms Funding: no information given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA CoI model Design: Quantitative Survey Purpose: Determine the extent to which the CoI model distinctly exists in blended and OL courses in a university setting Goal: provide recommendat ions INSTRs can use to improve TP in virtual classrooms Sample: n=97 students enrolled in 1. blended and OL courses (no info given on # student invited for determination of RR) Lawrence Technological University 2. 3. Demographics: 65% (n=64) male 50% (n=47) undergrads 27% (n=26) OL-only 59% (n=58) blended-only Setting and Inclusion criteria: Fall semester 2007, students invited to voluntarily participate Exclusion criteria: None identified Attrition rate: No information Research Questions: To what extent does social, COG and TPs relate to demographiccharacteristics (gender, age, degree status)? - 50 item web-based survey with: 16 items demographic info 34 items from CoI survey (using 5-point To what extent does Likert scale from the relationship SDis=1 to SA=5: between social, COG  TP -13 items and TPs support OL  SP - 9 items and blended  CP - 12 items communities of inquiry? CoI items - reliability 4. testing and assessment 5. To what extent does of internal consistency the r/s b/w TP (Cronbach's alpha), (instructor interaction) face-validity, and and STU satisfaction construct validity via exist in an OL and EFA & CFA. blended COI model?  Excellent internal consistency for full COI model (α= .974) Study Findings Decision for Use in Practice alpha of .97 and strong reliability coefficients (measures internal consistency) Application to my PICOT Level of evidence: VI ANOVA: - TP significantly related to course satisfaction and Strengths: course knowledge. CoI model had good psychometric Participants satisfied properties in sample EFA conducted in with both course and Excellent internal consistency for SPSS using principle knowledge perceived full CoI model. Application to my axis factoring as high levels TP (p<.01 PICOT extraction method, ANOVA). followed by direct - STU dissatisfied with Limitations: oblimin rotation course and knowledge Not sure if study peer reviewed – perceived low TP (p<.01 was paper presented at Academy CFA was conducted ANOVA). of Educational Leadership in Mplus using maximum likelihood Results: Application to practice and estimation. - TP needs to be increased Recommendations relevant to DNP project: in OL and blended SPSS for ANOVA TP in OL course is important courses. to examine the - STU satisfaction can be factor for sustaining both STU connection between satisfaction and knowledge and enhanced by improving CoI dimensions, should be increased in OL and TP learning context, blended courses. - STUs may exhibit student satisfaction, significant gains in the and knowledge in Recommendations to offer FAC learning when relevant OL courses. teaching techniques and education and TNG related to SP, CP & TP with focus on improving interactions are Focus on the impact effectively applied by the teaching performance. of the TP dimension. INSTR FAC develop interventions aimed at improving TP and ultimately student satisfaction Stats used: First- and secondorder factor analysis & ANOVA TP crucial to establishing a learning environment that will allow the SP & CP to take shape and create a community where learning can be effective. ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 57 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Diaz, S. R. CoI et al. model (2010) Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicat ive factor analysis, and the validity of the communit y of inquiry survey Funding: no informatio n given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA Diaz cont. Design: Quantitative descriptive study Purpose: To explore validity COI survey’s tripartite structure (TP, CP, & SP) and incorporate both STU ratings of the degree to which TP, SP, & CP were manifest in courses and their ratings of importance of each Also explore valitiy of overall COI framework Sample/Setting n=412 even mix of GS and UGS at 4 US colleges and UNIVs (40% RR) Inclusion criteria: STU volunteers to complete survey at 4 US colleges and UNIVx Exclusion criteria: None identified Attrition rate: No information Major Variables & Definitions Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Study focused on Survey STUs’ perceptions of CoI inventory tool with 34 the importance of CoI MULT items addressing items. TP (13 items), SP (9 items), & CP (12 items). Definitions: TP= arising out of Uses 5-point Likert effective practices in scale from SDis=1 to course design and SA=5 organization, facilitation of learning, Item-importance ratings and direct instruction. on ordinal scale (1=unimportant to SP=degree STUs feel 5=extremely impt.) connected one to another realized Principal components through affective analysis of the expression, open multiplicative COI communication, and survey data supports the group cohesion construct validity of TP, SP, and CP of the COI CP= extent STUs able model. to construct and confirm meaning Cronbach's Alpha for through sustained Conventional COI: reflection & discourse 0.96 for TP, 0.92 for in OL CoI and SP, and 0.95 conceptualized in 4 for CP. phases: triggering, exploration, Cronbach's Alpha for integration, resolution Importance of COI of ideas and concepts. items: 0.91 for TP, 0.94 for SP, and 0.94 RQ1: does FA for CP. confirm construct validity of CoI instrument (and model) when MULT scores that consider item importance as well as degree to which items are met are employed? RQ2: How do Data Analysis Study Findings FA of MULT scores - Findings supported CoI for each item of COI tripartite structure (TP, computed as the CP, & SP) product of - STUs felt all items impt; an item's course rating but viewed some items score and its as more impt. than corresponding others. importance rating. - STUs valued TP above CP and above SP. FA of MULT scores - SP items found least (item rating impt of CoI subscales importance rating) with least variability in supported the CoI gap scores model's tripartite - M responses for 34 structure, and so prior items ranged from 4.44 validation studies. (INSTR clearly communicated impt due The Principal dates/time frames for Components approach learning activities) to in SPSS version 17.0 3.66 (OL or web- based used to explore communication is subscale structure of excellent medium for the 34 items r/t COI social interaction) inventory. - SDs highest (SD=1.11) (“INSTR provided FB that helped me Oblique rotations understand my strengths (Direct Obliminal in and weaknesses relative SPSS) used with to course’s goal and default value δ objectives”) and lowest =0 specified to reasonably limit level (SD=0.80) (“INSTR of correlation among clearly communicated impt course goals”) the factors. CoI conventional items: Keyser-Meyer-Olkin Collective M scores measure of sampling - TP (M=4.22, SD=0.93) adequacy was 0.95 - SP (M=3.98, SD=0.99) CP (M=4.08, SD= 0.89) suggesting factor analysis should yield Importance ratings: distinct and reliable - Most impt area (M=4.52) “INSTR factors. clearly communicated impt. due dates/time Pattern Matrix (by Decision for Use in Practice Level of evidence: VI Strengths: builds on prior validation studies of COI survey (other studies have found excellent internal consistency/construct validity for full 3-factor CoI instrument), Applicability to my PICOT Limitations: No information on how volunteers recruited or inclusion or exclusion data, low RR but only one-time survey Application to practice: Gaps in TP items show areas where INSTRs can focus more attention & use time & resources in areas/items perceived to be more important Most impt. area: “INSTR clearly communicated impt. due dates/time frames for learning activities” - Areas to place higher priority: Clearly communication important due dates/time frames for learning activities - Providing timely FB - Clearly communicate impt course topics - Clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities - Provide FB to help STUs understand strengths and weaknesses relative to course goals/objectives - Guide class toward understanding course topics to clarify thinking ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 58 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions descriptive gap analyses comparing mean course ratings and mean itemimportance rating inform the construct validity of the CoI framework? Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data Analysis Study Findings SPSS) frames for learning Descriptive analysis of activities” gaps t/w course rating - Least impt. area scores and respective (M=2.84) “I was able to time importance ratings form distinct impressions of some course participants” - Highest SD (SD=1.26) “OL or web-based communication is excellent medium for social interaction” - Lowest SD (SD=0.70) “INSTR clearly communicated impt. due dates/time frames for learning activities” Collectively - TP (M 4.05, SD=0.95) - SP (M 3.52, SD 1.18) - CP (M 3.77, SD = 0.99) - Gap Analysis w ladder graphs: Descriptive Comparisons of course and importance - Course ratings Ms (TP=4.20, SP=3.97, CP=4.08) - Importance ratings Ms (TP=4.09, SP=3.34, CP=3.77) Interpretation: STUs value TP most and SP least Decision for Use in Practice STUs may value TP above SP because they correctly view TP as a necessary condition for the development of SP. Potential use of CoI instrument in DNP project for FAC to assess their strengths and weaknesses in relation to TP, SP and CP. ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 59 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Hosler, K.A. & Arend, B.D. (2012) The importanc e of course design, feedback and facilitatio n: Student perception s of the relationshi p between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Funding: no informatio n given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA Conceptual Design/Method Framework CoI Framew ork Design: Descriptive statistics and Qualitative data Purpose: Examine student perceptions of the r/s b/w CP and the elements of TP to provide insight and explanation about any r/s found and see if these perceptions differed b/w STUs in f2f classes and STUs in OL classes Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions N=582 surveys distributed Res. Questions: n=208 completed survey 1. To what extent do (35.7% RR) STU perceptions of 68% (n=142) FG CP explain the sub32% (n=66) MG elements of TP? Ages 22-60 years 63% (n=132) OL STUs 2. Does the r/s b/w CP 37% (n=76) f2f STUs and TP differ b/w 92% (n=154) GS OL STUs and STUs 8% (n=14) UGS in f2f classes? Inclusion criteria: Convenience sample of GS and UGSs from 46 different course sections, representing 27 courses across disciplines, were asked to voluntarily complete COI survey from: 28 OL courses and 18 f2f courses Exclusion criteria: None noted Attrition rate: N/A, only a one-time survey Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data collected from a single-34 statement CoI survey during the 8th and 9thh week of a 10-week course. Data Analysis Study Findings RQ1: 3 elements of TP explained 46.9% of variance in CP and adjusted R2=.469, F(3, 194)=58.974, p<.001 RQ2:No stat. sig. diff. in Each statement RQ 1: Multiple linear score for OL STUs evaluated using Likert- regression analysis. (M=51.36, SD=12.03) and type scale from 1 classroom STUs (M=50.56, (strongly disagree) to 5 RQ2: Independent SD=14.43) t (201)=.423; (strongly agree) samples TT. Leven’s p=.67) (TT) and the M TP 3. To what extent does test for equality of score. Magnitude of diff. in course satisfaction Validity and reliability for variance showed the Ms (M diff = .60, 95% explain FP and TP? CoI instrument assumption of equal CI: -2.07 to 3.27) was very demonstrated previously variances had not been small (η2=.0009) 4. Do STU perceptions in several large studies violated. RQ3: of TP and CP vary Results indicate CP & TP based on age, Cronbach’s coefficient RQ3: multiple linear explained 78.3% of the previous OL course alpha for this study was regression analysis. variance in satis. And experience, or .964, suggesting very adjusted R2=.783, F(2, gender? good overall internal RQ4: one-way 195)=356.489, p<.001 consistency for scores multivariate ANOVA. 5. How do STUs from this sample. Preliminary assumptionQualitative results mirrored describe and explain Cronbach’s coefficient testing conducted and statistical findings (STUs the r/s b/w TP and alpha for TP, CP, & satis. results of evaluation of felt specific aspects of TP CP? (to obtain Were .966, .953, & .942. linearity, normality, influenced their levels of narrative and and equality of critical thinking) qualitative variance were Findings support information) acceptable hypothesis that CP can be increased or decreased Qualitative analysis through specific teaching Atlas.ti software to action of INSTR code data & allow Same themes r/t TP voiced themes to be identified, by STUs in both OL and isolated, compared and F2F courses but these were regrouped. more noteworthy OL: course organization, specific INSTR feedback, D mgmt., INSTR participation in Ds Stats used: PASW Statistics Software, version 18 used for all statistical analyses. Decision for Use in Practice Level of evidence: VI Limitations: Low RR of 35.7% Strengths: (despite low RR, I found study credible & trustworthy) Validity and reliability for instrument demonstrated previously in several large studies Qualitative results mirrored statistical findings (STUs felt specific aspects of TP influenced their levels of critical thinking) Application to my PICOT Application to practice: Aspects of TP that STUs felt improved critical thinking were when:  Clear goals,  Relevant assignments,  Direct feedback provided that was encouraging, timely & specific,  Actively facilitated Ds that kept everyone focused and participating at meaningful level. TP is key aspect of fostering CP and therefore should be promoted ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 60 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Jackson, L.C., Jones, S.J., & Rodriquez , R.C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfactio n in online courses. Funding: no informatio n given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA Conceptual Design/Method Framework Chickering & Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergrad uate ducation and CoI Model Design: Quantitative Descriptive Study Purpose: Identify FAC actions which positively influenced STU satis. in OL classes at the CC level Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions College 1 n= 426 individuals out of 1,403 OL enrollments (30% RR) completed course/INSTR evaluation IV1-Directions College 2 – n=1,004 out of 1,459 OL enrollments (69% RR) IV 4 -Enthusiasm Inclusion criteria: Students enrolled in OL courses who completed existing course/INSTR evaluations at end of Fall 2006 semester only. IV 6- Activities IV2-timeliness IV 3- Expectations IV 5- Climate IV 7-Value DV 1: STU satis. DV 2: Course value Setting: 2 public, ruralservice CCs located in Texas (College 1 and College 2) Exclusion criteria: Not addressed Attrition rate: N/A, data based on one evaluation only Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data Analysis Study Findings Data obtains from STU - SPSS 11.0 Statistical FAC actions within OL responses to each INST’s analysis including courses appeared to existing OL descriptive statistics, impact STU satis. course/INSTR evaluation Bivariate Correlations existed b/w instrument from fall 2006 correlations, specific FAC actions and semester. Multiple regressions student satis. at ea. INST. used to identify FAC Data revealed strong r/s Data from both Colleges behaviors which b/w the satis. with the OL imported into Microsoft affected the satis. of experiences. Excel spreadsheets for STUs enrolled in OL All analyses indicated that consistent labeling of - Multiple regression there was less than a 1% data columns across analysis – chance that the identified INSTs. - Spearman r/s occurred by chance correlation College 1: strongest r/s b/w Imported to SPSS 11.0 cooefficient with IV FAC actions and DV for analysis data not randomly STU satis. High distributed for +correlations b/w IVs comparison timeliness/accessibility of - Levene’s Test for ISTR, clearly stated equality of variances expectation, INSTR - One-way ANOVA enthusiasm, and climate to confirm findings and DV measuring course of initial TTs value. Mod + correlations b/t FAC actions clear directions and activities and STUs’ perceived value of course College 2:+r/s b/w FAC actions and STU satis. in OL courses. Mod + correlation b/w IV activities and DV perceived value of OL courses. Low + r/s b/w timeliness and value. - STU responses to social aspects of learning environment support COI model and synchronize with TP Decision for Use in Practice Level of evidence: VI Limitations: Low RR in both colleges, only studied CC students so may not be generalizable to HE universities Strengths & Application to practice: offers further definition and refinement of teaching strategies to generate effective social behaviors and comfortable learning environments in the OL class. These social aspects of learning environment support theory behind CoI and TP for overall effective OL experience. Application to my PICOT Implications: Direct efforts to educate, train and support FAC in development and delivery of OL courses TNG to include actions to enhance STU engagement and satis. Revise INSTR evaluation instruments to measure effective FAC actions in OL class to create opportunity for FAC development Research based on this study could assist in finding best practices in OL education ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 61 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Ke, F (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Conceptual Design/Method Framework CoI Adult learning theory Mixed method case study (qual and quant), naturalistic case study approach to document OL INSTRs TP Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Adult students & instructors of 10 WebCTbased OL courses in higher ed (undergrad to doctoral level) including nursing, edu, business mgmt.. Research questions: 1. what was nature of TP in adult-oriented OL courses? 2. What were key features of TP that adult STUs identified as supportive for thei CP and SP 3. What ws nature of CP and SP in adultoriented OL course 4. What were relations b/w TP, CP & SP? Interviews, artifact analysis of course sites, content analysis of OL discussion transcripts, learning experience survey INSTR interviews conducted F2F for 4560 min STU interview were 3045 min 10 WebCT OL courses at major Hispanic-serving research UNIV in America. Courses ranged from 8-25 enrolled STUs in UG or GS levels 2 raters coded OL transcripts (inter-rater reliability .87). Add more from pg 2 Preisman, K. A.(2014). Teaching presence in online education: From the instructor’ s point of view. Mixed methods Small state college in Nebraska Examines creation of TP from vantage point of a lone ranger instructor who was solely responsible for creation and management of course Based on data collected from student grades, SUTINSTR communication, D posts, course evals. Total of 124 students participated in 2 courses over 3 semesters during fall, 2011, spring and fall 2012 Examines TP from vantage point of a lone ranger instructor who is solely responsible for creation and management of the course Data collected from student grades, STUINSTR communication, D postings, emails, and courses evals collected from 2 courses Data Analysis Study Findings Decision for Use in Practice Each course examined individually then compared to all 10 cases to identify common and different contextual features impacting online experiences. Qualities valued by To create CoI, need to first generate students: effective TP to reinforce emerging CP & SP. TP should be catalyst that  Enhancement with narratives and exemplar imitates the community development process. cases  Open ended D questions Include qualities valued by students  Mix of class & grp D  Multi-modal interaction in the Tip Sheet  Prefer indiv. Work over Other recommendations: group Single- and cross Clear expectation with Self-disclosure by instructors case analyses (through welcome video, self-intro rubrics & samples  Flexibility in deadlines or personal narrative) and fair Content analysis of attention to students’ D posts  Easy find course design discussion transcripts reinforce sense of connection and with visual aids with each unit motivate adult learners  Sense of connection with classified into 1 of 8 INSTR & their selfcategories under 3 Instruction (virtual lecturing and disclosure dimensions. Coded learning support) and written  Fair, indiv. Attention by 2 raters and assignments critical to learning  Interactivity included artifact success  Easy access analysis, thematic Quick FB to D posts is most analysis, survey and  Prompt response desirable learning support. Provide cross-case analysis  Support at indiv. level lots of positive, encouraging FB 606 pieces of STUINSTR communication analyzed to identify themes and compare between Minimal TP course and Increased TP course INSTRs play a key role in creation and facilitation of the learning process, but it is likely more impt for the INSTR to simply be available for SUTs through a well-structured course as opposed to creating a presence of oneself in the OL classroom STUs needed INSTR to be present regarding organization, communication, feedback, and assistance Focus on “best practice” OL strategies that positively impact STU learning such as design and facilitation of courses by implementing highly cognitive activities and assignments. Feedback, especially formative progressive feedback was impt to STUs Clear goals and objective, effective course management, timely and responsive feedback, quality D board opportunities and variety of learner opportunities to process info ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 62 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data Analysis Analysis of TP behaviors occurring both within and outside main threaded D area of OL courses Used quantitative content analysis to analyze CoI measures of TP to compare a purposive sample of 2 identical sections of a fully OL course taught by INSTRs who appeared to have very different ways of engaging with their STU 2 measures of IR reliability. After initial inter-rater reliability, coders met to negotiate disagreements with both. Artifact Coding: CK statistics (Course A 0.85-0.91 initially and 0.94-0.97 neg, Course B 0.46-0.89 initial and 0.841.00 neg) HC (Course A 0.96-0.97 initial and -.97-0.99 negotiated, Course B 0.85-0.95 initial and -.991.00 negotiated). INSTR D IRR CK Course A= 0.1379 initial, 0.9678 neg HC= 0.4819 initial , 0.9778 neg, Course B Stats used: Quantitative content analysis to analyze CoI measures of TP Study Findings Decision for Use in Practice Total 606 pieces of STUINST communication analyzed Shea, P. & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructio nal effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the communit y of inquiry framewor k: A reexaminati on of measures and approach Funding: no informatio n given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA Purposive sample of all TP defined- “the Design: Quantitative content from 2 fully OL design, facilitation content identical upper-level and direction of Develop analysis courses cognitive and social ed by Purposeful processes for the Garrison sample n=3,422 individual purpose of realizing et al., messages coded (as unit of personally meaningful 1999 Purpose: To analysis) in total 286 and educationally understand documents worthwhile outcomes” nature of instructional Inclusion criteria: Research Questions: effort as Included in total: 1. Where does TP evidence in - D posts (672 course A, 691 occur in OL full OL course B) courses? courses - 438 messages 2. How do INSTRs through (announcements, emails, employ conceptual individual private folders, communicative lens of TP questions & answer) functionality with - 41 course docs (lectures, the course to syllabus, orientation, demonstrate TP? assignments, instructions) 3. In what ways do - 102 STU course artifacts students demonstrate (case studies, research TP? papers) 4. Does TP shift over Setting: 2 OL Business time? mgmt. courses during fall 5. Does TP correlate 2007 by state college in with learning northeast US, specialized in outcomes reflected distance and adult ED for in INST assigned non-traditional learners. grades? Each section designed by content experts and IDs and taught by experienced OL INSTRs who were not the course IDs. CoI model Exclusion criteria: (TP measures applied to each individual message) Documented productive Level of evidence: VI instructional effort and found conventional Limitations: research approaches fail Purposive sample began 8 weeks to account for the after courses ended, was not majority of TP behaviors feasible to ask INSTRs or students (thus may significantly to reconstruct participation under represent productive OL Strengths: 2 measures of IR instructional efforts) reliability used with negotiated reliability all above .94 indicating Restricting analysis of TP content analysis reliable, to D areas may be too Application to my PICOT narrow. Application to practice and Importance of examining Recommendations for OL work occurring INSTRs relevant to DNP project: throughout entire course - TNG and support for OL FAC around TP with benchmarks for Confirmed a 4th effective interaction Dimension of TP: - Make clear to students the extent assessment and capacity they participate in course Ds. Significant correlation - Once course underway, if choose between TP and learning not to participate in Ds should make outcomes (grades for case visible their direct involvement in studies) course through announcements, class reminders, private Effectiveness of INSTR communications with students who did not depend on TP in fail to participate. D only but responsiveness - Model how to ask questions in Ds and interaction with to develop student TP, later, can students in variety of assign roles to students in Ds. forums - Tie Ds and f/up learning activities together to gain benefit of correlation between TP and grades ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 63 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions Not identified Attrition rate: No information Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M.A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. Funding: no information given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent Country: USA CoI Framew ork Design: Descriptive statistics Crosssectional survey Purpose: Intent to present a comprehensiv e list of typical actions that an INSTR would take in setting up, delivering, and monitoring OL courses. Sample: n=65 STUs enrolled OL courses completed online questionnaires 81.5% (n=53) GS 13.8% (n=9) UGS 27.69% (n=18) no prior experience with OL 24.62% (n=16) extensive use of OL Inclusion criteria: GS and UGS enrolled in several OL courses in the education depts. at either of 2 large UNIVs in the Midwest Exclusion criteria: None indicated Attrition rate: N/A only one survey questionnaire given Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data Analysis Study Findings Decision for Use in Practice CK= 0.4856 initial, 0.9312 neg, HC=0.7317 initial, 0.9729 neg Definitions: IP= INSTRs interaction and communication style and the frequency of the INSTR’s input into the class discussions and communications. IP and TP used synonymously. Data collection via OL Questionnaire = 3 sets of items: 64 close-ended items (measure importance of indicators of IP in OL courses), 5 open-ended items (target STUs’ experience w OL learning and their preferences for various types of learning contexts). Additional items added based on INSTR experience. For each indicator, STUs rated importance on scale of 1 (not impt. at all) to 10 (very impt.) Open-ended itemsSTUs wrote 5 most impt. INSTR behaviors for their success in OL class. Level of evidence: VI Indicators of TP: Most impt INSTR behavior=”Makes course Limitations: requirements clear” - Convenience sample, results (M=9.95, SD=0.21) largely descriptive - Broad range of OL experience but Next top 3 - “Clearly communicated majority from one UNIV and may important due not represent population of STUs in dates/timeframes for OL courses learning” (M=9.86, SD - 81.5% GS so could not compare 0.43) GS to UGS - “Sets clear expectations Strengths: (despite limitations, I for D participation (M= found study credible & 9.78, SD= 0.54) trustworthy and application to my - “Provides clear PICOT) instructions on how to Ratings from close-ended participate in course questions were consistent with learning activities” open-ended items. (M=9.75, SD=0.59) Application to practice: Supports literature that IP is one of - Highest mean ratings also had least variability. the keys to effectiveness of OL Spearman’s rho used learning and INSTRs need to be Least Important: for correlation - “Has personal website for actively engaged in OL courses. coefficients. me to go to” (M= 5.38, Highlights aspects of IP that are most impt. for student success. SD+3.25) Low # UGS in sample - Next 3 lowest: Top 4 also had least variability (n=9) prevented - “Create chapter quizzes” 1. Make course requirements clear analysis of subset of 2. Clearly communicate impt. due (M=5.53, SD=2.93) items based on UGS - “Engages in ‘real time’ dates/time frames for learning or GS status. activities chat sessions” (M=5.60, 3. Set clear expectation for D SD=3.17) Open-ended itemsparticipation - “Provide video that several levels of allows me to hear and see 4. Clear instructions on how to analysis, including: participate in learning activities INSTR” - Classical content 6 of top 10 behaviors r/t clarity (M=5.74, SE=3.17) analysis (to Follow-up correlation 3 r/t communications determine Stats used: Closed-ended items analyzed using descriptive statistics. - 10 highest mean ratings = most impt. indicators. - 10 lowest ratings=least impt. - Highest dispersion =least consensus among STUs Prior OL experience treated as ordinal variable based on # prior OL courses ranging from 1(no prior OL course) to 5 (4 or more prior OL courses) ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 64 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity Data Analysis Study Findings indicators most impt based on frequency of responses, with higher frequency assumed to mean great importance). Concept mapping (to show r/s among assigned codes & relative importance of groups of actions & level of specificity that was impt) Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M.A. & Bentz, D. T. (2010). A follow-up study of teaching presence critical to students in online courses Funding: no information given Conflicts or Bias: none apparent CoI Framew ork Design: Descriptive statistics Crosssectional survey Purpose: Examine STUs perceptions of the importance of various indicators of TP for their success in OL courses. Sample: n=245 STUs enrolled OL courses completed online questionnaires 24.08% (n=59) GS 73.88% (n=181) UGS Inclusion criteria: GS and UGS enrolled in OL courses in the education depts. at either of 2 large UNIVs in the Midwest Exclusion criteria: None indicated Attrition rate: N/A only one survey questionnaire given Data collection via OL Questionnaire = 3 sets of items: 64 close-ended items (measure importance of indicators of IP in OL courses), 5 open-ended items (target STUs’ experience w OL learning and their preferences for various types of learning Research Questions: contexts). 1. What are the Additional items added differences in the based on INSTR importance of various experience. INSTR behaviors for GS and UGS enrolled For each indicator, in OL courses? STUs rated importance 2. What INSTR on scale of 1 (not impt. behaviors do GS & at all) to 10 (very impt.) UGS consider to be the most impt for their Open-ended itemssuccess in OL STUs wrote 5 most Definitions: IP= INSTRs interaction and communication style and the frequency of the INSTR’s input into the class discussions and communications. IP and TP used synonymously. Stats used: Closed-ended items analyzed using descriptive statistics. - 10 highest mean ratings = most impt. indicators. - 10 lowest ratings=least impt. - Highest dispersion =least consensus among STUs Mann-Whitney U tests to examine differences in rating for the UGS and GS. Spearman’s rho used for correlation coefficients. analysis-negative correlation b/w # prior OL courses and importance of behavior. Strongest neg correlations: - Instructor video rs(64) = -.45, p<.01, - Engaging in chat sessions, rs(64) = -.40, p<.01, - rs(63) = -.57, p<.01, Highest Frequencies - “Responding in timely manner” (f=23, 7.69%) - “Responding within 24 hrs” (f=22, 7.36%) “Making requirements clear” (f=18, 6.02%) There were no statistically sig differences b/w UGS GS ratings of group cohesion or facilitation. Mann-Whitney U tests showed 7 indicators that showed sign differences b/w ratings in terms of degree level. For each the UGS ratings significantly lower than GS ratings. Decision for Use in Practice 3 main higher-order constructs represented in concept map: setup of class, communication and instructor attributes I focused on findings based on GSs as that relates to my project population Most impt TP behaviors to students success are making course requirement clear and bine responsive to students’ needs Affirmed importance of direct instruction and facilitation elements of TP 10 indicators most impt to STUs were almost identical Good quote: “The OL INSTR must for UGS & GS. Most be able to compensate for the lack important for GS listed of physical presence by creating an below: environment in the OL classroom Most important behavior that encourages students to be for student success= #1engaged, motivated, validated, and communication. comfortable participating. Thus the #2Instructor dispositions OL INSTR needs to convey that #3 Feedback – there is an understanding, kind, #4 Clarity empathetic, patient, and creative #5 Discussion participation human being at the other end of the ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 65 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Citation Conceptual Design/Method Framework Sample/Setting Major Variables & Definitions courseS? Country: USA Measurement of Data and Instrument Validity impt. INSTR behaviors for their success in OL class. Data Analysis Study Findings #6 Materials #7 Facilitation #8 INST availability, course structure & navigation #9 INDIV replies in D #10 sending reminders Decision for Use in Practice virtual classroom? P. 78 All components of TP in CoI framework are impt to STUs ADV – advantages, AL-affective learning, α-alpha, b/w-between, CC-community college, CFA-confirmatory factor analysis, CK-Cohen’s kappa, CMS-course management system, CoICommunity of Inquiry, COG-cognition, CP-cognitive presence, CT-communication timeliness, CV-criterion variable, D-discussion, DF-discussion forum, DISADV-disadvantages, DVdependent variable, Dx-diagnose, ED- education, EFA-exploratory factory analysis, F2F-face-to-face, FA- factor analysis FAC-faculty, FB-feedback, FG-female gender, f/u-follow up, GSgraduate student, HE-higher education, HC- Holsti’s coefficient of reliability, HSD-Tukey’s honesty significant difference, ID-instructional designer, II-instructor immediacy, impt – important, INST – institution, INSTR-instructor, IP-instructor presence IR-inter-rater, IV-Independent variable, M-mean, MG-male gender, MOT- motivation, MULT-multiplicative, η2-eta squared, N-population size, n-sample size, NE-nurse educator, neg-negotiated, OL-online, p-p-value of computed statistic, PED-pedagogical, PRES-presence, PV-predictor variable, RCTrandomized controlled trial, RES-research, RQ-research question, RR=Response rate, r/s-relationship, satis.-satisfaction, SA-strongly agree, SD-standard deviation, SDis- strongly disagree, SE-self-efficacy, sig.-significant, SP-social presence, stat.-statistical or statistically. STU-student, TECH-technological, TP-teaching presence, TPS-teaching presence survey, TNG-training, TT-t-test, UGS-undergraduate student, UNIV-university, US-United States 66 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix C Synthesis Table First Author (see references for full citation) Baker Bush Diaz Jackson Population 377 STUs 97 STU 412 STUs 426 STUs 10 courses (cases) UNIV UNIV HE CC UNIV Setting Ke Preisman Shea & Hosler Sheridan &Sheridan,Kelly, Vickers Kelly & Bentz 606 3,422 coded 202 STUs STU-INSTR message communicatio ns UNIV HE HE 65 STUs 245 STUs UNIV UNIV FACUTLY PREPARATION NEEDS Preparation to improve TP Other nonspecific preparation or training encouraged Ongoing professional development desired x x x x x FINDINGS SUPPORTING IMPROVED OUTCOMES WHEN INCREASED TEACHING PRESENCE STU satisfaction enhanced STU learning outcomes enhanced -affective learning and cognition STU Motivation enhanced x x x x x RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE TEACHING PRESENCE Instructional Design and Organization Setting Curriculum (TPS #1) The instructor clearly communicated important course topics (for example provided a clear and accurate course overview (TPS #2) The instructor clearly communicated important course goals (for example provided documentation on course goals) Course well designed, organized, good layout and easy navigation of courses Methodical design prior to course onset Communicate important course topics Important course goals/expectations clearly communicated Visual signals and easy to find, easy to access Communicate clearly Designing methods (TPS #3) The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities (provided clear instructions on how to complete course assignments successfully) Instructions on how to participate clearly communicated Clear requirements/expectations Selection of instructional materials and textbooks Provide relevant assignments Rubrics with samples provided Course enhanced with narratives and exemplar cases Provide online resources Interactivitiy - Multi-modal interactions Utilizing the medium effectively The instructor helped me take advantage of the OL environment to assist my learning (provided clear instructions on how to participate in online discussion forums Establishing netiquette x X #3 x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X* x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Establishing time parameters (TPS #4) The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames X #1 for learning activities (helped students keep pace with the course, provided a clear and accurate course schedule, due dates and more) Due dates clearly communicated X* x x Time frames for activities clearly communicated x x x Keep course calendar updated CC-Community College, D-discussion(s), FAC-faculty, HE-Higher education, PED-Pedagogical, STU-student(s), TECH-technological TNG-training, TP-teaching presence, UNIV-University 67 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Synchronous courses sign. higher TP x First Author (see references for full citation) Baker Bush Diaz Jackson Ke Preisman Shea Hosler Sheridan Sheridan Facilitation of Discourse (implements designed activities, guides learners using variety of pedagogical strategies, use technology tools to provide guidance, videotaped lectures, written or verbal responses to student comments in discussion, exams, feedback through scores and/or written comments, email, conversations, active learning techniques and technologies to guide learning, co-creator of a social environment conducive for learning. ) Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement (TPS #5) The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of x x x agreement and disagreement on course topics in ways that helped me to learn Identify areas of agreement/disagreement x Seeking to reach consensus and understanding (TPS #6) The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards x understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. Dx misperceptions (could also be Direct instruction) x x Confirm understanding x x x Drawing in participants and prompting discussion (TPS #7) The instructor helped to keep students engaged x and participating in productive dialog. x x x Engage STUs (or Supporting Discourse per diagram between social and cognitive) Keep focused & participating x x Encouraging students to be engaged x Assessing the efficacy of the process (TPS #8) The instructor helped keep the participants on task in a way that x helped me to learn Encouraging students to be motivated x Setting the climate for learning (TPS #9) The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts x in the course (TPS #10)The instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants x Fair, individual attention x x Encourages student to be validated x Encourages students to be comfortable participating x A sense of connection with instructors and their self-disclosure (welcome video, self into or personal narrative) Encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions Overall, the instructor acknowledged student participation in the course (replied in a positive, encouraging manner to student submissions) x x x x x x Productive discourse x x Direction x x Facilitation x Responsive to student needs X* X* Support at individual level x Direct Instruction (subject matter expert, model expert analysis of cases and/or issues, diagnosing misconceptions, providing knowledge from various sources such as outside reading, summarizing discussion, focusing discussion on relevant issues, providing feedback to students so they can achieve learning objectives, providing learning environment that assists students to master material (G & Anderson, 03): Focusing the discussion on specific issues (TPS #11) The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues a way that helped me to learn. Discussion participation x Discussion with open ended questions x Mix of class and group discussions x Tie Ds and f/up learning activities together x x Model asking questions x x x x x Facilitate discussion x x x x x Summarize discussion x x x x x Inject knowledge from diverse sources x x x Feedback (TPS #12) The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses x (TPS #13) The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion x X#2 x x x x x x x x x x Feedback to STUs Prompt or Timely x x X #1 x x X CC-Community College, D-discussion(s), FAC-faculty, HE-Higher education, PED-Pedagogical, STU-student(s), TECH-technological TNG-training, TP-teaching presence, UNIV-University 68 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Encouraging First Author (see references for full citation) Clear when given Direct feedback Specific Acknowledge Reinforce contributions Confirming understanding The instructor provided explanatory feedback that assisted me to learn (responded helpfully to discussion comments or course assignments) Other participants in this course provided explanatory feedback that assisted me to learn (responded helpfully to discussion comments or course assignments) Presenting content and questions (Shea 2003) The instructor presented content or questions that helped me to learn. Summarizing discussion The instructor helped in a way that assisted me to learn Diagnosing misunderstandings The instructor helped me to revise my thinking (correct misunderstandings) in a way that helped me to learn Injecting knowledge from diverse sources The instructor provided useful information from a variety of sources that assisted me to learn (references to articles, textbooks, personal experiences, or links to relevant external websites) Responding to technical concerns This was role of help desk as not to divert resources away from primary role of facilitating learning. So students don’t become dependent on teacher for tech support Positive Instructor Attributes Be visible - involvement in the course other than Ds, Adjust communication patterns to meet STU needs Empathetic Positive and Friendly Knowledgeable Consistent Keeps promises Accessible understanding Convey understanding, kind, empathetic, patient and creative human in teacher Flexible Helpful Instructor Project self and personalities and teaching styles into virtual classroom (illumination of teacher disposition) Sense of human or other disposition Good lecturer x x Baker Bush Diaz Jackson x x x x x x x x x x X #2 Ke Preisman Shea x Hosler x x x x x x Sheridan x x x x x x x Sheridan x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x CC-Community College, D-discussion(s), FAC-faculty, HE-Higher education, PED-Pedagogical, STU-student(s), TECH-technological TNG-training, TP-teaching presence, UNIV-University x x x x x x x 69 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix D Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (draft v14) Teaching Presence Design & Organization 1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics. 2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals. 3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities. 4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities. Facilitation 5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn. 6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking. 7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue. 8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. 9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course. 10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants. Direct Instruction 11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn. 12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses. 13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion. Social Presence Affective expression 14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course. 15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. 16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. Open communication ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium. 18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions. 19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants. Group cohesion 20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust. 21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants. 22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration. Cognitive Presence Triggering event 23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues. 24. Course activities piqued my curiosity. 25. I felt motivated to explore content related questions. Exploration 26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course. 27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions. 28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives. Integration 29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities. 30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions. 31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class. Resolution 32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course. 33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice. 34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities. 5 point Likert-type scale 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree 70 71 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix E Figure 2. Model For Evidence-Based Practice Change Revised Version Of Roswurm & Larabee’s (1999) Model Assess need for change in practice Link problem with intervention and outcomes Synthesize best evidence Design practice change Implement and evaluate practice change Integrate and maintain practice change (Larrabee, 2004) 72 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix F ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 73 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 74 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 75 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 76 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 77 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 78 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 79 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix G IRB Approval Letter from Arizona State University EXEMPTION GRANTED Debra Hagler CHS - Evaluation and Education Excellence 602/496-0802 DEBRA.HAGLER@asu.edu Dear Debra Hagler: On 7/30/2015 the ASU IRB reviewed the following protocol: Type of Review: Title: Investigator: IRB ID: Funding: Grant Title: Grant ID: Documents Reviewed: Initial Study Best Practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses - An Asynchronous Online Educational Module for Online Nursing Faculty Debra Hagler STUDY00002965 None None None • Protocol, Category: IRB Protocol; • Project Flowchart Diagram and all surveys, Category: Measures (Survey questions/Interview questions /interview guides/focus group questions); • Online Consent Form, Category: Consent Form; • Scripts, Category: Recruitment Materials; The IRB determined that the protocol is considered exempt pursuant to Federal Regulations 45CFR46 (2) Tests, surveys, interviews, or observation on 7/30/2015. In conducting this protocol you are required to follow the requirements listed in the INVESTIGATOR MANUAL (HRP103). Sincerely, IRB Administrator cc: Connie Miller 80 81 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix H IRB Site Approval Letter from The University of Arizona College of Nursing 82 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix I Faculty Meeting Announcement Script Hello, my name is Connie Miller and I am a doctoral student in the DNP in Innovation Leadership at Arizona State University’s College of Nursing and Health Innovation. I am completing my evidencebased project here at the College of Nursing and very soon I will be contacting faculty members who teach online with an email invitation to participate in my project. Participation will involve viewing an online asynchronous educational module (approximately 30 minutes in length) entitled Best Practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses. Before and after the module there is a short quiz as well as a Teaching Presence survey to complete. The estimated total time required to complete the educational module and surveys will be approximately 6070 minutes. Those who complete the module and surveys will be invited to complete one final application survey that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. This is to be completed 8 weeks after completing the module. Because I will not know who participated in the module, the reminder email will be sent to all eligible faculty members who received the initial email invitation. You are eligible to participate if you currently teach online and have taught at least one online course in the past. Participation is strictly voluntary and there are no foreseeable risks. If you choose not to participate or you withdraw from the project at any time, there is no penalty and it will not affect your job status in any way. Your responses on the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. All responses will be anonymous and identified only by a self-generated personal identification number. The results of this project may be used in reports, presentations, or publications, but only in aggregate form. Your name will not be known or used. I appreciate your consideration and if you would like to participate or have any questions concerning this project, you can contact me at (520) 869-8835 or csmille9@asu.edu 83 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix J Email Recruitment Script Best Practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses Date: 7/24/2105 Dear Participant, I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Debra Hagler in the College of Nursing and Health Innovation at Arizona State University. I am inviting you to participate in an evidence based educational module to enhance teaching presence in online courses. This will involve viewing an online asynchronous educational module (approximately 30 minutes in length), completing a short preand post-module quiz related to the module content (approximately 10 minutes each) and pre- and postmodule Teaching Presence surveys (each 7 minutes to complete). The estimated total time required to complete the educational module and surveys will be approximately 60 minutes. Eight weeks following the educational module you will be invited to complete an application survey that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. You are eligible to participate in this project because you are currently teaching an online course. Your participation is voluntary. Responses to the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. You can skip questions in any of the surveys if you wish. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the program at any time, there will be no penalty. Participation in this study will not affect your job status. You must be at 18 years or older to participate in the study. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to your participation. Your responses on the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. All responses will be anonymous and identified only by a self-generated personal identification code. The results of this project may be used in reports, presentations, or publications, but only in aggregate form. Your name will not be known or used. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact the following team members: Debra Hagler, PhD (602) 496-0802 DEBRA.HAGLER@asu.edu Connie Miller, MSN, (520) 869-8835 or csmille9@asu.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, through the ASU Office of Research Integrity and Assurance, at (480) 965-6788. Please let me know if you wish to be part of the study. Sincerely, Connie S. Miller, MSN, RNC-OB, CNE 84 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix K Reminder Email Recruitment Script Reminder - Invitation to participate in DNP project and additional link provided Second notice invitation to participate and additional link to the post module summary. Note: this is only for those few who already completed the module but not the post test. If interested in the post-test and CE certificate still you can easily access via this link: Survey link here Dear New Participant, I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Debra Hagler in the College of Nursing and Health Innovation at Arizona State University. I am inviting you to participate in an evidence based educational module to enhance teaching presence in online courses. This will involve viewing an online asynchronous educational module (approximately 30 minutes in length), completing a short pre- and post-module quiz related to the module content (approximately 10 minutes each) and pre- and post-module Teaching Presence surveys (each 7 minutes to complete). The estimated total time required to complete the educational module and surveys will be approximately 60 minutes. Eight weeks following the educational module you will be invited to complete an application survey that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. You are eligible to participate in this project because you are currently teaching an online course. Your participation is voluntary. Responses to the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. You can skip questions in any of the surveys if you wish. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the program at any time, there will be no penalty. Participation in this study will not affect your job status. You must be at 18 years or older to participate in the study. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to your participation. Your responses on the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. All responses will be anonymous and identified only by a self-generated personal identification code. The results of this project may be used in reports, presentations, or publications, but only in aggregate form. Your name will not be known or used. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact the following team members: Debra Hagler, PhD (602) 496-0802 DEBRA.HAGLER@asu.edu Connie Miller, MSN, (520) 869-8835 or csmille9@asu.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, through the ASU Office of Research Integrity and Assurance, at (480) 965-6788. Please let me know if you wish to be part of the study. Sincerely, Connie S. Miller, MSN, RNC-OB, CNE If you are interested in participating in this project, please click on the following link: Survey link here Note: 1 contact hour available after completing the post module survey — The University of Arizona Continuing Nursing Education is an approved provider of continuing nursing education by the Western MultiState Division, an accredited approver by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation. 85 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix L Email Script to Participants 8 Weeks after Completing Module This email message is for those who participated in the evidence-based educational module Best Practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses. If you elected not to complete the module, you can disregard this message. If you completed the educational module, I thank you for your time and would like to invite you to complete one final Teaching Presence Application survey that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The link to the survey is at the end of this message. You will need your self-generated personal ID number to log in (the suggested format for the ID was the first letter of mother’s first name, followed by last four digits of your home phone number, with no added spaces. For example: L6245). Responses will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. Your participation in the survey is voluntary and you can skip any question or stop at any time. If you choose not to participate there will be no penalty and it will not affect your job status. Your responses on the questionnaires will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational module. All responses will be anonymous and identified only by the self-generated personal identification number. The results of this project may be used in reports, presentations, or publications, but only in aggregate form. Your name will not be known or used. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact the following team members: Debra Hagler, PhD (602) 496-0802 DEBRA.HAGLER@asu.edu Connie Miller, MSN, (520) 869-8835 or csmille9@asu.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, through the ASU Office of Research Integrity and Assurance, at (480) 965-6788. Please let me know if you wish to be part of the study. I appreciate your participation in this final survey. You can access the survey using your personal identification number created specifically for this project at the following link: Survey link here 86 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix M Figure 3: Best Practices for Enhancing Teaching Presence Online Flow Chart Surveys 1-3: 1. Demographics 2. Teaching Presence Retrospective-Self report (TPR-SR) 3. Teaching Presence Pretest Complete Module Surveys 4-5: 4. Teaching Presence Posttest 5. Teaching Presence IntentSelf report (TPI-SR) Teach Online for 8 weeks Survey 6: 6. Teaching Presence Application-Self report (TPA-SR) This is a table with the sequence of steps the participants were to go through – perhaps not all did in this order, and no all finished the entire process Steps 1 Complete demograp hic survey 2 Complete TPR-SR survey 3 Complete pretest 4 Complete Module Survey # Description and Time commitment 1 Demogra phics – 3 min to complete 2 TPR-SR – 7 min to complete 3 Pretest (same questions as posttest) 10 min to complete NA Module 45 min to complete 5 Optional complete eval to get CE certificate NA CE cert 6 Complete posttest 7 Complete TPI-SR 8 Teach online course for 8 weeks 9 Complete TPA-SR 4 Posttest (same questions as pretest) 10 min to complete 5 TPI-SR – 7 min to complete NA Teach 8 weeks 6 TPA-SR – 10 min to complete 10 Answer open-ended questions after TPA SR Open ended questions 1-2 mon to complete ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix N #1 Demographic Survey Please answer the following questions as they relate to your current teaching position: Age o Less than 25 (1) o 25-34 (2) o 35-44 (3) o 45-54 (4) o 55-64 (5) o 65+ (6) o I choose not to answer this question Which of the following degrees have you earned? Select all that apply o MA o MS o MSN o MAdmin o MEd o EdD o DNP o PhD o Other __________ o I choose not to answer this question Do you have a graduate degree in education? o Yes o No o I choose not to answer this question How many formal face-to-face courses have you taught in the past? o 1-3 courses o 4-6 courses o 7-10 courses o >10 courses o I choose not to answer this question How many formal blended (online and face-to-face) courses have you taught in the past? o 1-3 courses o 4-6 courses o 7-10 courses o >10 courses o I choose not to answer this question How many fully online courses have you taught in the past? o 1-3 courses o 4-6 courses o 7-10 courses o >10 courses 87 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE o I choose not to answer this question Have you ever been a student in a formal online education program? o Yes o No o I choose not to answer this question (Question logic)- if yes next question) how long were you a student in an online program? (specify number of years) __________ o I choose not to answer this question How were you prepared to teach online? Check all that apply. o No specific training o Informal self-study o On-the-job training o Mentoring o Continuing education program o Educational conference o Online teacher training program o Graduate program education o Other ___________ o I choose not to answer this question What o o o o is your current teaching role/responsibility? Lead faculty/course chair Section faculty/teaching team member Other ___________ I choose not to answer this question Have you have ever developed a course in any format (ie. Face-to-face, blended, or online)? o Yes o No o I choose not to answer this question (Question logic)- if yes,... Indicate the type/format of the course(s) you have developed (Select all that apply) o o o o Online Blended Face to face I choose not to answer this question 88 89 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix O #2 Teaching Presence Retrospective- Self Report (TPR- SR) Survey Survey done prior to module to measures current teaching presence behaviors: Please indicate how frequently you did each of the following in your most recent online teaching. Use the following scale: Not applicable (0), Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Frequently (4), Always (5) 1. I clearly communicated important course topics 2. I clearly communicated important course goals 3. I provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities 4. I clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities 5. I identified areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics 6. I helped guide the class towards understanding course topics 7. I helped keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue 8. I helped keep course participants on task 9. I encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in the course 10. I reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants 11. I helped focus discussion on relevant issues 12. I provided feedback that helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses 13. I provided feedback in a timely fashion 90 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix P #3 Teaching Presence Pre-test Test your knowledge: Read each statement and select the answer you think is correct 1. The Community of Inquiry Framework was originally developed to A. B. C. D. research the complex dynamics of online learning identify interactive strategies for online instruction determine the technology needed to teach online design online courses for optimal student learning 1. Which of the following is a part of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework? A. B. C. D. Intellectual Presence Community Presence Cognitive Presence Interactive Presence 3. In the Community of Inquiry Framework, social presence is defined as the ability of participants to A. identify with the community, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities. B. develop cohesive relationships, interact meaningfully with others, and dialog purposefully through participation in online discussions. C. engage with the content, apply new ideas, and project personal feelings of belonging in the online environment by way of purposeful online discourse. D. work together to recognize problems, brainstorm ideas, and create solutions through information exchange and projecting individual understanding of concepts. 4. In the Community of Inquiry Framework, cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which learners are able to A. relate and communicate with one another by projecting their ideas and understanding in online discussions. B. construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry. C. develop cohesive relationships and collaborate in discussions to realize meaningful educational outcomes. D. interact and express emotions through meaningful discourse in online learning activities and discussions. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 91 5. In the Community of Inquiry Framework, teaching presence is defined as A. the personality, character, and style used by a teacher to establish his/her identity in the online environment to foster effective and successful learning outcomes. B. the disposition, behaviors, and projection of individual characteristics for the purpose of facilitating online learning and realizing successful educational outcomes. C. the passion, excitement, and enthusiasm for teaching that is conveyed to enhance engagement and realize personally meaningful learning outcomes. D. the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes. 6. According to the Community of Inquiry framework, what are the three components of teaching presence? A. B. C. D. Interactive Teaching, Connecting Ideas, and Concept and Dissemination Direct Instruction, Facilitating Discourse, and Design and Organization Triggering Event, Supporting Discourse, and Construct and Interaction Information Exchange, Enhancing Discussion, and Process and Diffusion 7. According to the body of evidence, which of the following is consistently rated by students as one of the most important behaviors to promote teaching presence? A. B. C. D. Welcoming students with introduction videos Selecting good textbooks and resources Communicating course requirements Leading and summarizing all discussions 8. Which of the following is an example of teaching presence in the Design and Organization component? A. B. C. D. Setting curriculum Seeking consensus Presenting content Focusing discourse 9. Which of the following is an example of teaching presence in the Facilitating Discourse component? A. B. C. D. Presenting educational content Responding to technical concerns Setting the climate for learning Establishing time parameters 10. Which example is an indicator of teaching presence in the Direct Instruction component? A. B. C. D. Reinforcing positive student contributions Injecting knowledge from diverse sources Communicating clearly all that is required Encouraging participants in discussions 92 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix Q #4 Teaching Presence Post-test (identical to pre-test, completed after module) Test your knowledge: Read each statement and select the answer you think is correct 1. The Community of Inquiry Framework was originally developed to A. B. C. D. research the complex dynamics of online learning identify interactive strategies for online instruction determine the technology needed to teach online design online courses for optimal student learning 2. Which of the following is a part of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework? A. B. C. D. Intellectual Presence Community Presence Cognitive Presence Interactive Presence 3. In the Community of Inquiry Framework, social presence is defined as the ability of participants to A. identify with the community, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities. B. develop cohesive relationships, interact meaningfully with others, and dialog purposefully through participation in online discussions. C. engage with the content, apply new ideas, and project personal feelings of belonging in the online environment by way of purposeful online discourse. D. work together to recognize problems, brainstorm ideas, and create solutions through information exchange and projecting individual understanding of concepts. 4. In the Community of Inquiry Framework, cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which learners are able to A. relate and communicate with one another by projecting their ideas and understanding in online discussions. B. construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry. C. develop cohesive relationships and collaborate in discussions to realize meaningful educational outcomes. D. interact and express emotions through meaningful discourse in online learning activities and discussions. ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE 93 5. In the Community of Inquiry Framework, teaching presence is defined as A. the personality, character, and style used by a teacher to establish his/her identity in the online environment to foster effective and successful learning outcomes. B. the disposition, behaviors, and projection of individual characteristics for the purpose of facilitating online learning and realizing successful educational outcomes. C. the passion, excitement, and enthusiasm for teaching that is conveyed to enhance engagement and realize personally meaningful learning outcomes. D. the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes. 6. According to the Community of Inquiry framework, what are the three components of teaching presence? A. B. C. D. Interactive Teaching, Connecting Ideas, and Concept and Dissemination Direct Instruction, Facilitating Discourse, and Design and Organization Triggering Event, Supporting Discourse, and Construct and Interaction Information Exchange, Enhancing Discussion, and Process and Diffusion 7. According to the body of evidence, which of the following is consistently rated by students as one of the most important behaviors to promote teaching presence? A. B. C. D. Welcoming students with introduction videos Selecting good textbooks and resources Communicating course requirements Leading and summarizing all discussions 8. Which of the following is an example of teaching presence in the Design and Organization component? A. B. C. D. Setting curriculum Seeking consensus Presenting content Focusing discourse 9. Which of the following is an example of teaching presence in the Facilitating Discourse component? A. B. C. D. Presenting educational content Responding to technical concerns Setting the climate for learning Establishing time parameters 10. Which example is an indicator of teaching presence in the Direct Instruction component? A. B. C. D. Reinforcing positive student contributions Injecting knowledge from diverse sources Communicating clearly all that is required Encouraging participants in discussions 94 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix R # 5 Teaching Presence Intent-Self Report (TPI-SR) Survey Done immediately after module with posttest, to measure intent to engage in best practices for online teaching presence Please rate how often you intend to apply the following behaviors in your next online teaching experience. Use the following scale: Not applicable (0), Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Frequently (4), Always (5) 1. Clearly communicate important course topics 2. Clearly communicate important course goals 3. Provide clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities 4. Clearly communicate important due dates/time frames for learning activities 5. Identify areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics 6. Help guide the class towards understanding course topics 7. Help keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue 8. Help keep course participants on task 9. Encourage course participants to explore new concepts in the course 10. Reinforce the development of a sense of community among course participants 11. Help focus discussion on relevant issues 12. Provide feedback that helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses 13. Provide feedback in a timely fashion 95 ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE Appendix S #6 Teaching Presence Application- Self Report (TPA- SR) Survey Given 8 weeks after module to measure application of best practices for online teaching presence. Have you taught online since completing the module “Enhancing Teaching Presence in Online Courses”? Yes or no If no, thank them once again for completing the module and go to last question about comments or suggestions for future modules If yes, then continue with the following items In the current online course you are teaching or just completed, please indicate how often you do (or did) each of these. Use the following scale: Not applicable (0), Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Frequently (4), Always (5) 1. I clearly communicated important course topics 2. I clearly communicated important course goals 3. I provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities 4. I clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities 5. I identified areas of agreement and disagreement among students on course topics 6. I helped guide the class towards understanding course topics 7. I helped keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue 8. I helped keep course participants on task 9. I encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in the course 10. I reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants 11. I helped focus discussion on relevant issues 12. I provided feedback that helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses 13. I provided feedback in a timely fashion How did you demonstrate teaching presence in your most recent online teaching? Select all that apply o Design course for easy navigation o Send welcome email to students ENHANCING TEACHING PRESENCE o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 96 Record introductory video to introduce yourself and the course Provide online resources Include planned synchronous activities Ensure course contains detailed orientation Include relevant assignments with rubrics and samples Clearly communicate course topics and goals Clearly communicate course requirements Clearly communicate how to participate in discussions and all learning activities Clearly communicate all due dates Set the climate for learning to foster development of a sense of community Ice breaker or “getting-to-know-each-other” forum for students to introduce themselves, find commonalities, and build relationships Encourage students to be comfortable participating Respond to student questions or needs Establish netiquette Use announcements frequently Introduce each week or new module with an overview (audio clip preferred) Send reminders of upcoming activities or due dates Keep course calendar updated Provide useful information from a variety of sources Give fair individual attention and feedback Encourage, acknowledge, and reinforce student contributions Identify areas of agreement and disagreement in discussions Draw in participants and prompt discussions Model asking questions in discussion Help focus discussion on relevant issues Help keep students engaged in productive dialog and on task Encourage exploring new concepts in the course (“think out loud”) Tie discussions and follow-up learning activities together Summarize discussion Others: Please list others not on this list___________________________________________________________________________ Do you have any comments to add about this educational module or future modules you would be you be interested in? _______________________________