Content uploaded by Helle Bundgaard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Helle Bundgaard on Jul 30, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
1
Visualising the
dynamics of online
learning communities
in online and blending
learning courses
Experiences from three university
courses
Victoria Jae Chuang
Research assistant
Department of Plant and Environmental Science
University of Copenhagen
Alejandro Ceballos
Assistant lecturer
Department of Plant and Environmental Science
University of Copenhagen
Helle Bundgaard
Associate professor
Department of Anthropology
University of Copenhagen
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
2
Peter Furu
Associate professor
Department of Public Health
University of Copenhagen
Henrik Bregnhøj
E-learning consultant
Center for Online and Blended Learning
University of Copenhagen
Inez Harker-Schuch
Research assistant
Department of Plant and Environmental Science
University of Copenhagen
Christian Bugge
Henriksen
Associate professor
Department of Plant and Environmental Science
University of Copenhagen
The authors have worked together for several years in an online and
blended learning project at the University of Copenhagen
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
3
Abstract
Online learning communities are a foundational element of online and blended
learning. Many learning activities in online and blended learning courses
require students to collaborate and work together with their peers. In order
for these learning activities to be successful it is important that participants
are engaged socially and emotionally in their online interaction to create a
sense of community and cohesion, corresponding to what constitutes Social
Presence in the Community of Inquiry Framework model. As teachers, we
therefore focus on creating learning designs that facilitate the development of
online learning communities. In this article, we examine the development of
online learning communities in online discussion forums. We map a selection
of discussion threads from three university-level courses using the NodeXL
software, and discuss the implications of e.g. structure, facilitation and group
size on the online learning community that emerges. We find that the
framework for participation in discussions (e.g. level of guidance and role of
facilitators) affects the degree of connectivity within the online learning
community and the prevalence of “social” posting, which has implications for
strengthening the community and student-to-student support throughout the
course.
Introduction
The significance of establishing a social presence for developing an online
learning community and facilitating knowledge construction when designing
online and blended learning courses has been emphasized by numerous
authors (e.g. Garrison et al., 2000; Salmon, 2002: So and Brush, 2008; Akyol et
al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009; Shea and Bidjerano (2009); Garrison et al., 2010;
Remesal and Columina, 2013; Kozan and Richardson, 2014). In the
Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI) developed at Athabasca University
(Garrison et al., 2000), teaching presence works together with social presence
and cognitive presence to create the education experience by setting the
climate, supporting the discourse and regulating the learning to facilitate that
students are moving through the different phases of practical inquiry. In the
Five Stage scaffolding model developed at Open University (Salmon, 2002) the
online socialisation that is taking place in the second stage of the model is
essential for bridging social and cultural differences and creating an online
learning community before going into the later stages with information
exchange, knowledge construction and development. In a blended learning
course on HIV-AIDS prevention, So and Brush (2008) found that perceived
collaborative learning was correlated with both social presence and
satisfaction level. Students perceiving high levels of collaborative learning also
perceived higher levels of social presence and were more satisfied with the
course. These results were highly affected by the course structure, emotional
support, and the media for communication. Akyol et al. (2009) performed a
mixed method study of two online courses where interviews with students
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
4
revealed that social presence created a comfortable environment for sharing
ideas, expressing views and collaborating, thereby facilitating a higher level of
cognitive presence. Shea et al. (2009) performed content and social network
analysis to examine the discourse in asynchronous online courses. They found
that higher and more consistent teaching presence and social presence
resulted in higher levels of cognitive presence. Furthermore, correlation
between instructor teaching presence and student social presence was lower
when instructor teaching presence was low. In another study with more than
2000 online learners Shea and Bidjerano (2009) found that more than 70% of
variance in perceived cognitive presence could be explained by the perceived
teaching and social presence. Similar results were obtained in a study with
205 online learners (Garrison and Cleveland-Innes 2010), indicating that
social presence is to a large extent a function of instructor teaching presence,
and mediates the development of cognitive presence. In a study featuring
online collaborative group work, Remesal and Columina (2013) redefined
social presence as the result of constructive and evolutionary interaction in a
group discourse and found that social presence promotes both sense of
community, relational dynamics and self- and collective efficacy, and thereby
supports the learning process. Kozan and Richardson (2014) investigated the
relationship between teaching presence, social presence and cognitive
presence in six online courses and found that there was a significant
relationship between cognitive presence and social presence, as well as
between cognitive presence and teaching presence. Recently, other authors
have questioned the significance of social presence in online and blended
learning, claiming that cognitive presence within the CoI framework can
develop independent of social presence (Annand 2011), and that social
presence may even negatively affect critical thinking (Costley and Lange,
2016). However, these claims have also been challenged by Garrison (2011)
arguing that whereas social presence may not be so important for courses
focusing purely on information transmission, social presence together with
teaching presence remains essential for cognitive presence and for
constructing knowledge in online and blended learning courses that require
critical thinking.
In this paper we explore how online learning communities can be used in
learning designs to promote social presence and improve intended learning
outcomes. We investigate three use cases within a selection of the online
courses offered by the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) and the Technical
University of Denmark (DTU). As a point of departure for this paper, we focus
on the asynchronous online discussions in three courses: Climate Change
Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation (CCIAM), Global Environmental
Management (GEM) and Fieldwork: ethnography and analysis. Although these
three courses are quite different from each other in content and learning
design, we use them as case studies because they represent different course
types, varying in the level of instructor facilitation, as well as other factors
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
5
such as course size, group size, student body composition, etc. In online and
blended learning courses, interaction in discussions—whether these
discussions are driven purely by social connection and emotional support,
used solely as a learning activity, or a combination of both—constitutes one of
the primary community building activity students engage in during the course.
These discussions lay out the interaction among students explicitly and in
writing, and are an opportunity to see a space in which a continuous
interaction amongst participants can occur.
Objectives
The objectives of this paper are:
1. To explore the potential of using online learning communities as a
means to improve online and blended learning outcomes
2. To describe the social dynamics within these online learning
communities by refining and applying a systematic method of
visualising these discussions which differentiates: degree of
connectivity, responsiveness, number of interactions with other
participants, overall CoI level, and sociality
3. To discuss the challenges and opportunities experienced in facilitating
online learning communities in online academic discussions
Scope
We have chosen to map eight selected discussions from two student groups in
each of our three courses. The selection of these discussions provides a cross-
section of our learning designs and collective experience in facilitating online
discussions, and represents a range in--among others--the level of instructor
facilitation of discussions, group size and heterogeneity, and purpose of
discussion. The teachers have then been presented with the maps from their
course and asked to reflect on the dynamic in their groups, and whether
certain aspects of the learning design can be identified as positive and
negative contributing factors.
While this article focuses on the online learning community within “teacher-
organised” online discussions, it is important to remember that interaction
amongst students naturally flows beyond the framework of the course, often
into students’ personal lives. We acknowledge that students likely interact
outside of the course, both in-person (e.g. meeting during other courses and
introduction day programs), and on social media and other forms of
communication (SMS, Whatsapp, Facebook). These interactions are also
significant and contribute to the development of the online learning
community within the course; however, we intentionally exclude these
interactions from our analysis because they cannot be mapped systematically
like discussion threads, and are to a degree outside of the control of the
learning design and therefore also outside of the scope of our analysis.
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
6
Methodology
Description of study settings
The courses studied in this analysis are all offered by the University of
Copenhagen or the Technical University of Denmark. The CCIAM course is
offered by the Faculty of Science at the University of Copenhagen, and is a
masters-level course. It is one of two compulsory, first-semester courses for
students of the MSc in Climate Change. The Fieldwork: Ethnography and
analysis course is also a masters-level course offered by the Faculty of Social
Sciences, and is also compulsory for third-semester students of the MSc in
Anthropology. Following the Coursera model, the Global Environmental
Management course is open to anyone who is interested in the topic, although
two years of undergraduate study in a science field related to the environment
is recommended. See Appendix I for a comparative overview of courses
studied.
Data collection
Using a combined quantitative/qualitative approach of systematically
mapping interactions within selected discussions on the three courses, we
have visualized the structure of the online interactions which took place
among students and between students and their teacher(s) in a range of
learning communities.
We have used NodeXL, an open-source software package designed to visualize
social networks, to produce the visualisation of the discussions. NodeXL works
as an extension of Microsoft Excel and is commonly used in scientific research
of social networks (Hansen et al., 2011). We have chosen to use NodeXL
because it is open-source, widely used in scientific research, and provides a
simple procedure for data manipulation and visualization that avoids the use
of complex programming language and provides a simple way of analyzing
social networks. With regards to the objectives of this article, the analysis
provided by the NodeXL software is useful for quantifying the interactions and
the connectivity present in an online learning community. Furthermore, the
visualisations produced by the software provide a way of summarizing a
generally very long and complex discussion into a salient visual graph, which
forms the core of the discussion with teachers regarding the facilitation of the
development of these online learning communities.
The discussions were mapped manually by reading each thread and entering
quantitative parameters of the discussion into the NodeXL first, followed by
qualitative parameters.
Parameters
NodeXL produces a visualisation of the online learning community in each
discussion based on inputted parameters describing the interactions in the
thread. These parameters are manually entered into an Excel spreadsheet, and
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
7
can be classified as quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative parameters are
countable parameters, such as the number of participants and the number of
interactions, and provide the basic structure of the network map. These
parameters are standard to the NodeXL software, and must be inputted in
order for NodeXL to produce a visualisation. Qualitative parameters are an
assessment of a given interaction, such as the Community of Inquiry level or
sociality, and provide more in-depth information regarding the nature of that
particular interaction. These qualitative parameters are not required for
NodeXL to produce a visualisation, and have been added in this analysis for
the purpose of providing more nuanced information about the nature of the
interactions in these online learning communities.
Quantitative mapping protocol
A NodeXL visualisation is constructed of two basic building blocks: vertices
and edges.
In our visualisations, vertices represent the participants in the discussions,
and are shown as blue spheres. The diameter of the spheres represents the
number of other participants he or she has interacted with during the
discussion. The position of the spheres on the map is purely esthetical and the
spheres were arranged manually to ensure a clear overall picture of the
network.
The interactions among participants are represented by edges. Edges can only
exist between two participants, and are shown in the graphs as lines
connecting the blue spheres. An edge is assigned between two participants
when a participant explicitly mentions another participant in a post. If a
participant mentions several other participants in a single post, an edge is
created between the speaker and each participant. If the speaker mentions the
same participant twice in the same post, only the first mention is counted.
The first interaction between two participants is represented by an edge with
a thickness of 1 unit. After the first edge is created, any subsequent
interactions between those two participants are represented by an increase in
the thickness of the original edge by 1 unit. The thickness of the line between
two participants therefore represents the number of individual interactions
between these two participants. In this paper, we refer to the sum of all
interactions between two given participants as a ‘conversation’.
Since we focus on the interactions between participants in an online learning
community and the network that is created by these interactions, posts which
do not explicitly mention another participant were initially mapped as an
interaction with oneself. These interactions were later determined negligible
and not included in the visualisations. It is important to note, however, that
although these posts are not included because they do not establish a
connection to another participant, they can still spark connections among
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
8
participants in the community and foster the discussion, although in an
indirect--and therefore unaccountable--way.
The first post to start a discussion was assumed to have been addressed to all
participants of the discussion, and was not taken into account or mapped.
In the CCIAM discussions, participants were asked to make summaries of the
discussion thus far, for the benefit of the other participants. These summary
posts were not mapped.
Qualitative mapping protocol
The interaction between two given participants in a discussion is further
elaborated in our analysis by means of two qualitative parameters:
Community of Inquiry (CoI) level and level of “sociality”.
The CoI level is intended to assess the overall quality of the interaction
between the two given participants. This assessment is based on the
Community of Inquiry Framework (Figure 1), which classifies each interaction
on a scale from 0-4. It is important to note that the CoI level displayed on the
visualisations represents the overall CoI level achieved by these two
participants over the entire discussion. A CoI level was therefore not assessed
for each individual interaction in the discussion, but rather assigned as an
average assessment of overall quality of the interaction between those two
participants. The CoI level was assessed by a grader who had experience using
the CoI levels for the purpose of grading discussions in the Autumn 2015/16
CCIAM course.
The CoI level is represented on the maps by color of the edges (Figure 1).
In addition to the CoI level, we also use three different types of edges (dotted,
dashed or solid) to represent the “sociality” of interaction between two given
participants. We use a hierarchical classification of “sociality” for this analysis,
in which “anti-social” (represented by a dotted line = -1 in Table 1 below) is
the lowest, followed by “neutral” (represented by a dashed line = 0), and then
“social” (represented by a solid line = 1) as the highest. We assumed in this
analysis that the progression of sociality is unidirectional, e.g. once an
interaction has achieved a higher level of sociality in this hierarchy, it cannot
be lowered. The visualisations therefore show highest-reached level of
sociality. An “anti-social” interaction was only observed once during the
analysis of all three cases, due to an accusatory tone used by one participant
when addressing another. Because “anti-social” interactions were so rare, the
default edge type is of neutral sociality (dashed line), which tends to be
characterised as solely curriculum based.
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
9
Defining the concept of “sociality” for this analysis is problematic, as
“sociality” and socialization is strongly dependent on the context in which
interactions exist, and therefore does not adhere to the same rules of
classification for all interactions in all contexts (Irwin and Berge, 2006). The
use of the sociality parameter itself was an intuitive addition to the analysis, to
characterize a particular type of ideal interaction that the teachers strived to
see in their courses and consequently designed the discussions to optimise.
Although the sociality parameter can be rather dependent on the judgement of
the assessor, we have attempted to standardize the definition of a social
interaction based on the specific context of the three courses we use as cases
in this analysis.
For the purpose of our analysis, we define a “social” interaction based on the
interpreted intention of the participants who are interacting. Our definition
takes departure in Irwin and Berge’s differentiation of socialization from
simple interaction, the difference being that “socialization requires more than
just engagement for its own sake or for the sake of a response. For example,
students can go through a routine exchange of basic information such as
introducing themselves or giving one another their telephone numbers. By
definition, these people would be interacting. But it takes more than just
talking to constitute socialization” (Irwin and Berge, 2006). In our analysis, we
have defined a “social” interaction as one in which at least one participant in
the exchange attempts to form a connection with another participant by
means of personally relating to the other participant, often by showing
empathy, support or a willingness to help collectively resolve a problem and
achieve the learning outcome(s).
The rationale behind the creation of a strong online learning community is
based on Randy Garrison’s CoI framework which highlights social presence
(2011), as well as Gilly Salmon’s Five Stage Model which emphasizes the
importance of socialisation and support derived from the online community
during the learning process (2002). We therefore also define “social”
interactions as those which reflect the “online socialization” stage (Stage 2) of
Salmon’s Five-Stage Model, characterized by participants “familiarising” and
building “bridges between cultural, social and learning environments”
(Salmon, 2002). This corresponds with the definition of social presence as the
ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study,
communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal
and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual
personalities (Garrison, 2011).
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
10
Figure 1: Key for Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework showing levels used
in visualizations
Ethical considerations
In order to preserve the anonymity of the participants in the discussions, each
participant has been assigned an alias consistent with their gender.
Case studies
Eight discussions have been mapped in this analysis:
Two discussions from the Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and
Mitigation course on the topic of climate change and human health,
directed by Peter Furu.
Two discussions from the Global Environmental Management MOOC,
directed by Henrik Bregnhøj.
Four discussions from the Fieldwork: Ethnography and analysis
course’s online activities, directed by Helle Bundgaard.
Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation
In the CCIAM course, students were required to participate in two
asynchronous discussions per week. These discussions were structured by the
teacher responsible for the module, and led by guiding questions prepared by
the teacher in advance. The discussions selected for analysis from the CCIAM
course were two concurrent, week-long online discussions from the module
on climate change and human health. We observed the discussions from two
distinct teams of students--Team A and Team B--on the topic of health impacts
of climate change and variability. This module was particularly highly
assessed by students in their feedback and comments. Students on the CCIAM
course were divided into several working teams of approximately 12-15
students per group, depending on the size of the course, with one “e-sibling” (a
former student on the course acting as a teaching assistant) each. With the
intention of building equally interdisciplinary teams containing
complementary competencies, the course responsible created these student
groups before the start of the course, considering each student’s educational
background, working experience, study program, and country of origin. For
CoI level
LEVEL 0
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
CoI indicator
The interaction is
not related to the
topic(s) of the
discussion
The interaction features
exchange of information
related to the topic of the
discussion (regurgitation
= reproducing
knowledge)
The interaction
features connection
of ideas related to the
topic of the
discussion
(argumentation =
applying knowledge)
The interaction
features the
application of new
ideas to other
contexts
(argumentation =
developing
knowledge)
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
11
this analysis, we selected the discussions of two teams: Team A, which
demonstrated consistent participation and high levels of contribution in the
discussion, and Team B, which generally required more encouragement and
intervention from the course responsible to achieve adequate participation.
In these particular discussions, a starting question was posed by the teacher;
for example: “What do you consider the biggest climate change related threat
to human health in your own geographical setting (your home town/village)?”
Students were then expected to review the learning resources provided by the
teacher--in this case, a video presentation, literature and a questionnaire--and
respond to the opening question. Students were also expected to engage with
other students by responding to fellow students’ contributions. The teacher
continued to lead the discussion by posing additional questions (also prepared
in advance of the discussion start), while the e-siblings facilitated the
discussion by encouraging students, participating in the discussion and posing
additional questions of their own.
The content and teaching style used in each weekly module was determined
by the individual teachers, based on their professional areas of expertise and
personal pedagogical preferences. In the design of the Human Health module,
emphasis was on stimulating students’ individual reflections on some key
thematic questions or issues. This allowed students to bring on board
personal knowledge and experiences from their own geographical settings
combined with new knowledge gained through consulting the various
available learning resources. Furthermore, because of the cross-cutting nature
of human health in the climate change context, discussions could benefit from
students’ knowledge gained in other E-modules with focus on e.g. water and
environment, which are important determinants of health. Other
considerations included taking advantage of the different scientific disciplines
represented in the teams by highlighting the true multidisciplinary
perspective of climate change and health in the online discussions.
Global Environmental Management
The discussion forum on the Global Environmental Management course is an
open space on the MOOC in which students can start their own threads and
engage in discussion with fellow students. Participation in the discussion
forum is not required on the course, and the teacher does not prepare guiding
questions to facilitate the discussion. Initiating discussions is therefore the
students’ task, and teachers do not facilitate the discussion actively; instead,
they intervene in the discussions if necessary and in certain discussions
provide in-depth knowledge if they find it appropriate.
The discussions chosen for analysis from the Global Environmental
Management course were those which displayed the most interaction amongst
students on a topic relevant to the content of the course (that is, not
discussions relating to practicalities of taking the course).
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
12
When a student chooses to start his/her own discussion, this discussion
thread is visible to all participants on the course. Any participant on the
course can subsequently engage in this discussion if they find the topic of
interest; therefore the “teams” in this course are self-selected and not
determined by a course responsible. Students on the GEM course do not work
in predefined student groups in discussions or assignments, as is the case in
the CCIAM and Fieldwork courses. The two discussions selected for analysis
from the GEM course have at least one participant in common.
Fieldwork: Ethnography and analysis
Before developing the fieldwork online activities three key objectives were
formulated: to lessen the feeling of loneliness and performance related
insecurity which many anthropology students experience during fieldwork, to
increase analytical reflection while in the field, and to facilitate the possibility
of drawing on the skills of co-students.
The course offers two kinds of online activities, one of which consists of
assignments developed by staff, the other an informal chat forum called Café
SoFa. Participation in the course was voluntary when material for this article
was collected but is mandatory today unless a student has no access to the
internet during fieldwork.
The assignments are concerned with the skill - or craft - of fieldwork and
consist of a number of questions prepared by the teacher. The questions are
intended to make students reflect upon their work process in order to
improve the quality of their ethnographic material and move forward
analytically. The assignments must be uploaded before a specific deadline in a
common thread and all team members give each other feedback within a
week. Students are encouraged to respond with a constructive critical
approach meant to encourage further reflection and thus progress in the work
process. The teacher or teacher assistant uses a separate thread to give each
student individual feedback. The reason for not sharing this feedback with the
team is to encourage students to trust their own judgement and communicate
directly with each other rather than wait for input from the teacher.
In contrast to the teacher-facilitated discussion of assignments, Café SoFa is
intended as a space which allows team members to discuss any issue related
to their fieldwork, also of a more personal character. Although the teacher
follows the threads, she does not intervene unless there is a need.
Autumn 2014 all 50 students going on fieldwork were invited to participate in
online activities. Twenty five students decided to join. We discuss the
interaction in two of a total of five participating teams. The selected teams
were successful in establishing well-functioning online communities. All in all
four teams functioned as intended whereas one did not function at all due to
some of the participants neglect of their obligations as peer reviewers and
participants in ‘cooperative reflection’ (Bundgaard and Rubow 2016).
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
13
Results and analysis
In total, eight online discussions are analysed in this paper. An overview of the
discussion outcomes in terms of size and interactivity are presented in Table 1
and each discussion is depicted in figures below.
Table 1: Overview of quantitative discussion outcomes in all discussions. The
numbers include interactions as defined above, an address of one other
person in the discussion (i.e. open unaddressed statements are excluded). The
Headings are defined as follows: Participants: No. of participants in the
discussion incl. tutor and teacher. Interactions: No. of single interactions
made. Responsiveness: average number of interactions per conversation =
sum(interactions)/sum(conversations) where one conversation/edge is the
same two people referring to each other (1 (lowest possible)=no interaction
gets an answer, 2=every interaction get exactly one answer etc.). CoI level: The
average of each statement’s CoI level (see figure 1). Sociality: The average of
all statements sociality level (-1=antisocial, 0=neutral, +1=Social).
Connectivity: The sum of conversations/sum(possible conversations (if
everyone wrote with everyone))
Guide to reading the figures below
Each blue sphere represents one participant in the discussion
Participants
Interactions
Responsive-
ness
CoI
level
Sociality
Connecti-
vity
CCIAM Health Impacts,
Team A
14
106
2.5
2.2
0.1
0.5
CCIAM Health Impacts,
Team B
13
81
1.9
1.6
0.0
0.5
GEM Hydroelectric
reservoirs
5
6
2
1.5
0.3
0.3
GEM Solutions to env.
problems
6
13
2.4
2.4
0.3
0.5
E&A Assign. feedback
Team 1
3
6
2.0
3.0
0.0
1
E&A Cafe SoFa Team 1
5
57
8.1
3.1
0.6
0.7
E&A Assign. feedback
Team 2
6
31
2.6
2.6
0.5
0.8
E&A Cafe SoFa Team 2
4
6
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.7
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
14
Diameter of the blue sphere represents how many connections this
participant has (how many other participants this participant has
interacted with)
Lines between spheres represent the OVERALL interaction between
these two participants
Color of the line represents the scientific level of the interaction, which
is assessed at a level (from 0-4) on the Community of Inquiry
framework (Figure 1), over the ENTIRE conversation.
Thickness of the line represents number of interactions between these
two participants
Continuity of the line (dashed or solid) represents “sociality” of
interaction. A solid line indicates that this interaction has achieved
sociality at least once during this discussion.
CCIAM
E-module 8.1: Health impacts of climate change and variability (Team A)
Figure 2: CCIAM Team A discussion visualization
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
15
E-module 8.1: Health impacts of climate change and variability (Team B)
Figure 3: CCIAM Team B discussion visualisation
Teacher’s reflections on the learning design and resulting online
learning community
In coordinating a large course such as CCIAM with 15 week-long modules, we
faced the challenge of engaging with every student at a productive academic
level. In this case, we had chosen a highly structured and facilitated approach
to the online discussions, and as a result, were able to see that close to all
participants (53 students, in this case) participated in the discussions weekly.
It was evident from both Team A and B that the teacher especially had a
central role in the online learning community, engaging with every single
student individually. In Team A, the tutor also played a central role--although
secondary still to the teacher--which reflected her role as a facilitator,
encouraging the students to continue their discussion, and challenging them
with further inquiries. We also noted that, while there were a high number of
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
16
interactions among many participants at a moderate to high academic level
(Level 1, 2 and 3 according to the CoI framework), the conversation was rarely
assessed as being “social”, and instead remained focused on curriculum-based
topics, with many interactions with the teacher. While this approach helped
achieving the intended learning outcomes and produced good and much
appreciated engagement by the students, it was also time consuming and
demanding for the teacher and tutors, as well as creating a heavy
administrative workload for course coordinators.
The rigorous nature of this approach thereby raises the question of how
transferable this learning design is, and whether the approach is realistic
and/or sustainable to use e.g. in a course which may have fewer teachers,
tutors and administrators. However, we experienced that the investment of
time in order to maintain a high frequency of teacher feedback to individual
students in the online discussions resulted in a generally positive response to
this learning design as expressed by students - for example: “- -great
presentation for e-lesson 8.1! Not only the content, but also the layout was
very interesting” (student a) and “- - the presentation was really well done and
the discussions in both e-lessons were very interesting and had a good flow”
(student b) “- -great discussion, topic and lecture” (student c); “- - great
discussion this week, Avanis, and thanks for good feedback - - “ (student d).
We find that the students appreciate the teacher’s engagement in the
discussion, and thereby become more engaged in the discussion as a result.
Our experiences from teaching on this course showed that the teacher’s time
investment should not be underestimated, as an investment by the teacher in
giving individual feedback to students in turn generated more interest by the
students in the topic, which resulted in more frequent postings, improved
input by the students into the discussion and a more lively online learning
community. In this sense, the teacher created a positive feedback loop with his
engagement in the role of discussion facilitator, resulting in increasing
engagement by students as his participation increased. This teacher’s
feedback involved consistently and continuously nourishing the discussion by
feeding more information back to the students to work with. The feedback
was, for example, constructive comments to an individual student’s
contributions, or provision of relevant weblinks and references for further
study by the student. Importantly, this feedback was given to the students on
an individual basis, and comments were directed towards students by
“tagging” them in the post, a la “@[Student’s name]”.
An acceptable balance should be struck in order to achieve the intended
learning outcomes through active student participation in learning activities
without compromising the demand for reasonable and acceptable workloads
by the teacher and tutors. The structured and facilitated approach has shown
that it is effective in achieving the intended learning outcomes, but we observe
that this is at the expense of putting perhaps unsustainable time pressure on
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
17
teachers, tutors and administrators. In our experience, the teacher’s time
investment has been high, but as a result the teacher has had a rewarding
teaching experience, and the students were positive about the learning
experience. In contrast with other modules on the course with lower teacher
engagement, this module received only positive feedback from students,
demonstrating that strong teacher engagement dominated when it comes to
student satisfaction.
From our experience of using a high level of structure and facilitation in a
course with 50-plus students, we recognize a potential opportunity to further
activate the online learning community, so that the students increasingly take
on the role of motivating and supporting one another in the discussions. This
type of interaction would be the quintessential Gilly Salmon “ideal”,
characterized by students supporting each other, providing feedback, and
clarifying information to each other (Stage 3), in order to set the stage for
knowledge construction (Stage 4) and development (Stage 5) (Salmon 2002).
While achievement of learning outcomes is still the primary focus in the
course, we should, however, also remember that a strong online learning
community is a foundational aspect of Salmon’s five-stage model, used as a
basis for the learning design in the CCIAM course. We see that sociality within
these highly facilitated and structured online learning communities is
somewhat neutral and the conversation is largely curriculum based,
suggesting that the strong focus on learning outcomes in a short period of time
(one week in this case) does not leave enough time and space for the online
learning community to develop and evolve as a social entity.
We therefore see potential in supporting and strengthening the online
learning community by shifting our facilitation efforts to focus more on Stage
1 and Stage 2 of Salmon’s five-stage model, before progressing to the later
stages focused on information exchange, knowledge construction and
development. In practice, it is necessary to first lay a foundation of support
and socialisation by emphasizing and communicating the necessity of a
“welcoming and encouraging” tone, and creating more space for
familiarisation and sharing of experiences. Once this precedent has been set,
students have access to the resources and tools to climb into Stages 3, 4 and 5
and take on more challenging academic tasks. However, the role of the teacher
to facilitate the discussion, control the quality of the discussion and ensure
continuity is still paramount.
Global Environmental Management
Management of Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Drought
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
19
Solutions to Environmental Problems
Figure 5: Visualization of GEM discussion about solutions to environmental
problems
Teacher’s reflections on the discussion
The two discussions from the Global Environmental Management course are
taken from the open discussion part of the course. First of all it is noticeable
that they are relatively small: 5/6 people and 6/13 interactions. This is clearly
because it is not compulsory to participate in the discussions. The discussion
space worked as an “open microphone” and the main focus in the course was
on other learning activities. So even though the course had 138 students who
passed all requirements (3 peer review essays and 5 quizzes) and about 3000
sign-ups to the course, these discussions remained small. An additional reason
for the limited size is that the teacher and tutor only participated in
discussions, where there was a real need for intervention, where they had a
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
20
detailed knowledge of the subject and when they had the time. Some other
discussions than the two mentioned here (of approximately same size) had
deep inputs from teachers in the department. But mainly because this was the
first run of the course, the time was focused on keeping up with the course
production and compulsory activities.
The discussions were started voluntarily by students who wanted to raise a
particular issue of their interest, and the ones who answered were those who
somehow shared the interest or felt like airing something along the same
lines. Each discussion shows generally a few quite dedicated students, who
take time to go deeper into the course topics and learn more. The discussions
here had CoI averages 1.5 and 2.4. In the lower end they exchange knowledge,
like suggesting answers out of the blue, informing about another aspect of the
same problem or informing about similar incidences in other places they
know of, and where level goes up to green, the students really try to dig into
understanding the dilemma put up by one of the others.
There are a few longer back and forth discussions between two students in
both discussions and in both cases they were started because one student was
particularly provocative in his formulations. Particularly, one of the threads
started out as a ping-pong side-discussion with another student that was first
quite anti-social, but then turned somewhat positive during clarification.
Besides the (anti)social content in the threads, they also created some deeper
discussion about the topic. Even the second discussion on solutions to
environmental problems started out with a provocative statement (by
anonymous!) in the first line: “I notice that most of you are more concerned
about assignments, grades and certificates than about the environment...”. It is
not the general trend, but there are examples of situations where a student
who is clearly passionate about the course subject is airing the passion in non-
polite way. It promotes in these cases a fairly deep exchange of views. It may
be compared to the development in open blogs, where things are aired that
would not be aired in a verbal discussion. Though in this case of educational
discussion the views are not extreme. The tutor or teacher had a few times
during the course intervened in discussions to promote decent language and
once a posting in another discussion was deleted by the teacher.
All in all these small discussions between people living far away from each
other (in Europe, USA and South America) has seemingly not led to creation of
any strong online sense of community (sociality 0.3 and responsiveness 2.0
and 2.4). Rather it has been a platform where students could test and practice
their own views. The level of discussions has been in the low/middle end of
the scale, which is probably due to not being compulsory. Questions are not
formulated by a teacher to promote learning; rather they are formulated by
the students, who had some personal or particular reasons to raise a subject.
Regarding sociality, the first stage of the Gilly Salmon model was promoted by
encouraging students to contribute to a simple discussion: “Tell shortly about
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
21
the most significant environmental problem where you live”. About 150
people contributed with an answer to the root question, but few answered
other students. Sociality has been generally low and created most often by an
even negative statement. This is presumably not the general case, but it
illustrates that particular care and initiatives from the teachers have to be
taken in order to create this online community.
Fieldwork: Ethnography and analyses
Team 1
The forum for feedback on assignments
Figure 6: Visualization of Team 1’s assignment feedback discussion in
Fieldwork
Cafe SoFa
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
24
Figure 9: Visualization of Team 2’s Cafe SoFa discussion in Fieldwork
Teacher's reflections on the experiment with online activity during
fieldwork
The forum for feedback on assignments
Team 1 used the two forums as intended after a brief spell of confusion. None
of the team members skipped giving feedback on assignments and they
informed each other if they for some reason had to delay their response.
Although their individual feedback varied in level of contribution (one team
member tended to apply knowledge whereas another team member often
contributed to develop knowledge), they all strived to do their best. Each team
member gave feedback as team members uploaded their assignments perhaps
reflecting that this team used the online facilities almost daily and not just
around deadlines. A few days after an assignment deadline a student could
therefore expect to get two sets of feedback from her team members as well as
(direct individual) feedback from the teacher. The visualization illustrates the
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
25
interaction centered around one specific assignment and mainly in the form of
feedback. Social comments are not absent but directly related to the theme of
the assignment. Other social interaction related to the experience of fieldwork
in this team takes place in Café SoFa.
In the very beginning of their fieldwork Team 2 discussed whether they all
were expected to give feedback on all assignments. One student’s response
‘one for all and all for one’ led to a quick agreement about mutual
commitment. As was the case with Team 1 the level of individual contribution
varied but at the high end of the scale. With several very strong team members
the feedback generally helped team members to develop their knowledge and
understanding of their experiences in the field. Unlike Team 1, Team 2 did not
warm to Café SoFa but instead allowed discussions of a more personal nature
to enter the forum meant for assignments as indicated by the continuous
green lines. For this reason the links between team members in Team 2 show
a high degree of inclusion of social comments when compared to Team 1. Four
of five team members are women out of which three have continuous social
interactions with each other. The single male member has continuous social
interaction with one of the team members only.
Cafe SoFa
After a few weeks in the field Team 1 began to use Café SoFa to ask questions
which arose during - and as a result of - fieldwork. Compared to the
curriculum-governed feedback amongst team members characteristic of the
forum for assignments, the discussion taking place in Café SoFa was intense.
All team members actively participated in the continuous dialogue throughout
their fieldwork and discussion was always initiated by the students. The
teacher was not the center of the discussion but always available to offer
support if needed. As the green lines show, support was needed for two of
three students during their fieldwork. Interestingly, this particular team also
communicated regularly using Messenger and Snapchat indicating that
supplementing the online learning space with external communication
technologies do not necessarily decrease interaction in the online learning
space; in some cases it might even be supportive.
Out of the five students in Team 2, three team members interacted with each
other using Café SoFa and one interacted with one of the team members only.
The gendered imbalance in participation should not be taken as evidence that
male team members have less need of support from their team, but it might be
of a different kind. Just like their female co-students they benefit from
participating in the formalised dialogue directly related to subject matter. As
mentioned Team 2 never used Café SoFa as originally intended. It is possible
that this is partly an effect of the preference of the male member of the team.
The student was highly respected by team members for his theoretical
sophistication and analytical insight. His relative withdrawal from social
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
26
interaction might have discouraged the other team members from spending
time simply ‘chatting’. However, this did not mean that the female students
gave up on social interaction-they simply moved this aspect of their net-based
sociality to the forum intended for feedback.
It came as a surprise just how difficult it was to get all students to commit
themselves to their learning community. Some students were unwilling to
spend the time needed ‘on team members’ not realizing that they themselves
were the ones who missed out in the end. Given that participation was
voluntary and all participants therefore had chosen to participate, it is
possible that the problem will increase when participation is made
mandatory. On a more positive note, the positive experiences of students who
have benefitted from their participation in cooperative reflection during
fieldwork might have greater influence on students’ willingness to invest
themselves.
One task which should never be underestimated for teachers preparing
students for fieldwork is thus to make it clear to students why they are likely
to benefit analytically as well as socially from participating in online activities.
Another task is to ensure that the course activities are well anchored in the
rest of the education. The semester before students go on fieldwork they
prepare their project proposals working in teams established by their teacher.
Teams which do not function well must be reestablished in time for the new
teams to develop mutual trust before students go on fieldwork.
Online activities during fieldwork, for students committed to their learning
community, clearly meet the set objectives. Students who have participated in
online activities during fieldwork are ahead of co-students who have not
participated in reflective cooperation when it comes to making sense of their
data material and experience. It is the coordinated, regular written reflection
on their work that most significantly contributes positively to analytical
progress. Evaluating the online activities one student noted: ‘It is the
assignments, more than my fieldnotes, which have started something…
[constructive thoughts]. If nobody had asked me to do it, I would not have
reached that far’… The regular feedback and in particular perhaps team
members’ questions and suggestions triggered by the uploads clearly make a
positive difference to the fieldwork process as evident in one student’s
farewell to team members: ‘I just want to say thank you so much for truly
valuable feedback! Your thoughts related to my argument have helped me to
move ahead…’
Apart from increased analytical reflection, however, the importance of social
support provided via the teams shall not be underestimated. During the last
days of fieldwork one team expressed her deep felt thanks at Café SoFa: ‘All in
all thanks for the feedback you have given me during the last couple of months
– it has been a pleasure and an enormous support on a daily basis to have this
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
27
forum during a period when one is so far from home and not really has anyone
with whom one can share one’s anthropological thoughts. And it has been a
great support to be able to discuss the methodological challenges with
participants who have taken liberties as well as those for whom words do not
come easily. It has really been a support to be able to share these things with
you…’.
What started as an experiment has become an integrated part of the
curriculum. At a time when it is both easy and cheap to communicate across
the globe it is increasingly difficult to defend leaving master students on their
own during what is arguably the most demanding part of their education.
Online activities during fieldwork continuously will be developed in close
interaction between students and teachers.
Discussion
This analysis has served as an opportunity for three teachers to look critically
on how our respective learning designs have worked in each of our own
courses, as well as a chance to share our experiences with each other and
reflect on potential improvements. The three courses we have chosen are
distinctive in their level of structure and facilitation, the role of the teacher
and students, and the discussion’s focus and purpose. The CCIAM course
featured high structure (mandatory minimum participation) and high
facilitation (high teacher activity in discussions), while the GEM course
featured low structure (“open-mic” format discussions) and nearly no
facilitation (only intervention by teachers if necessary), and the Fieldwork
course featured high structure (regular assignments with feedback and
designated space for social discussion) and low facilitation (minimal teacher
involvement in discussions) (Figure 10). In CCIAM, we found that although the
high level of facilitation by teachers and tutors was rewarding in terms of
student engagement, the workload involved in providing feedback and
discussion fodder to each individual student could be unsustainable for very
large courses (more than 60 students) with limited time and teaching
resources. In the GEM course, we found that although the “open-mic” format
attracted the most dedicated students and resulted in some provocative and
interesting discussions, there was overall very little sense of online learning
community amongst students on the course at large. In the Fieldwork course,
we found that the groups that devoted themselves fully to engaging in the
course benefited greatly from the discussions, but it was a challenge to ensure
that more students understood the importance of the online learning
community and committing to the process of engaging fully in the discussions.
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
28
Figure 10: Balance of structure vs. facilitation in the three courses studied in
this analysis
Creating space for sociality
In analysing our visualisations, we also realized that creating a high “sociality”
in the online learning community was a common end goal in the learning
designs on the three courses, and that we, as teachers, intuitively recognized
the importance of fostering social presence in our online learning
communities. Although the “sociality” parameter is built into the CoI
framework and the Five-Stage model, we can see that the practical application
in the online learning communities on the three courses focused differently on
optimizing achievement of learning objectives (CCIAM), students supporting
each other (Fieldwork), and students’ intrinsic motivation to connect with
fellow students on the course (GEM). Participation in the “social” element of
the online learning community must always, to some extent, be voluntary,
genuine and not forced, and we therefore suggest not to underestimate the
importance of creating space for informal discussions in one’s learning design.
It remains, however, a challenge to communicate the importance of the online
learning community to students and subsequently to get them to engage in its
creation and establishment themselves.
Structure and the online learning community
One important consideration of the structure used in the courses’ learning
design is therefore that of making the course--or specific course elements--
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
29
mandatory, and the effect of this demand on students’ motivation to engage in
the online learning community. According to student feedback in the CCIAM
course, we found that high structure can cause stress among students, but that
this stress can actually be somewhat mitigated by the teacher’s facilitation, i.e.
providing stimulation and consistent activity in the discussions. We grapple
with the question of structure on the CCIAM course, and from Autumn 2016
are experimenting with whether more freedom from structure can provide
space for the type of “social” discussions we have seen in past runs of the
course featuring less structure. In contrast, the Fieldwork course from
Autumn 2016 will be mandatory for all students embarking in fieldwork.
Whether more structure will affect motivation to engage in the online learning
community or not remains to be seen. Finally, we saw on the GEM course that
the “open-mic”, low structure approach was capable of creating sociality and
engagement in an online learning community, but only amongst a limited
group of particularly motivated students. We therefore conclude that some
structure and requirements can be beneficial to encouraging development of
the online learning community, but that high levels of structure must be
balanced with, for example, high facilitation by teachers and tutors, or a small,
intimate group setting with space for informal, supportive discussion, in order
to prevent isolation and unnecessary stress of students.
Facilitation and the online learning community
The role of the teacher, and more specifically, whether the creation of the
content on the course is primarily teacher driven or student driven, must also
be considered, and a balance must be struck between giving students total
independence and “hand-holding” the students. The high level of facilitation
on the CCIAM course could be interpreted as a comfort to the students, with
students reporting positive feedback to the teacher’s participation in E-
module 8 (the discussions studied in this analysis), in contrast to reporting
stress and anxiety in other weeks featuring lower teacher facilitation. Students
furthermore also report that it is helpful to have their tutor direct the
discussion and support the strengthening of the online learning community in
their groups. In the CCIAM course, the teacher and tutor take a central and
active role in shaping the online learning community and directing students
towards the learning outcomes. In the Fieldwork course, the teacher
intentionally took a more peripheral role, to allow the students to lean on each
other and use each other for support. This is a different approach than
employed in CCIAM, used with a much smaller group (4 students vs. 13
students), but is also successful in the groups which choose to commit to the
online learning community. Finally, in the GEM course, students are afforded
total independence, and encouraged to use each other as resources in the
discussion forum, consistent with the Coursera model. The teacher and tutor
did not “facilitate” the discussion, but rather “intervened” when they felt it was
necessary. We therefore find that the level of facilitation students need must
be dynamically adapted to the needs of the particular online learning
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
30
community. Attributes of the online learning community--e.g. group intimacy
and size, feeling of uncertainty among students, ability to rely on other
students for help and support, number of required tasks and structural
rigidity of the course--can result in certain groups needing more support at
certain times, and perhaps more independence to work within the group
during other times. The needs of the online learning community should be
interpreted by the teachers, and the role in facilitating the discussion thereby
adapted.
Conclusion
Our study confirms previous studies showing that teaching presence may
positively affect social presence and cognitive presence and that social
presence may in itself positively affect cognitive presence. Overall, we find
that an optimal learning design must be a well-adapted and dynamic balance
between structure and facilitation, which strives to give students an adequate
framework to launch their learning and ample material to progress their
inquiry, while providing freedom for academic curiosity and support for
taking intellectual risks.
Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 16 - 2016
ISSN: 1903-248X
http://www.lom.dk
31
References
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D.R., Ozden, M.Y. (2009): Online and Blended
Communities of Inquiry: Exploring the Developmental and Perceptional
Differences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning: 65-83.
Bundgaard, Helle and Cecilie Rubow. "From rite of passage to a mentored
educational activity: Fieldwork for master’s students of anthropology."
Learning and Teaching 9.3 (2016): 22-41.
Garrison, D. R., T. Anderson and W. Archer (2000): Critical inquiry in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education 2: 87–105.
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: 31-36.
Garrison, D.R. (2011): Article Review - Social Presence within the
Community of Inquiry Framework. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning: 250-253.
Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., Smith, M.A., (2011): Analyzing Social Media
Networks Through Nodexl - Insights from a Connected World. Morgan
Kaufmann, USA.
Irwin, C., Berge, Z. (2006): Socialization in the online classroom. E-Journal
of Instructional Science and Technology 9.
Kozan, K., Richardson, J.C. (2014): Interrelationships between and among
social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Internet and Higher Education
21: 68-73.
Pollard, K. (2009): Student engagement in interprofessional working in
practice placement settings. Journal of Clinical Nursing 18: 2846-2856.
Remesal, A., Colomina, R. (2013): Social presence and online collaborative
small group work: A socioconstructivist account. Computers &
Education 60: 357-367.
Salmon, G. (2002): E-Tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2011): E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning
Online. Routledge.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R.,
...Rangan, P. (2009): A re-examination of the community of inquiry
framework: Social network and content analysis. Internet and Higher
Education 13: 10-21.
Shea, P., Bidjerano, T. (2009): Community of inquiry as a theoretical
framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence”
in online education. Computers & Education 52: 543-553.
