Content uploaded by Stafford Lumsden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stafford Lumsden on Feb 20, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
A MULTIMODAL SOCIAL SEMIOTIC APPROACH
TO THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK
Semiotic resources, presences, and professional development
for online teacher education in TESOL
Stafford H. Lumsden
Bachelor of Arts, The University of Auckland
Master of Arts TESOL, Victoria University, Wellington
Master of Research, Macquarie University
Thesis Submitted to the Department of Linguistics
Faculty of Medicine, Health & Human Sciences
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
December 2022
i
Table of Contents
Table of Figures.......................................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................ xi
Candidate Statement ................................................................................................................................................. xii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... xiii
COVID-19 Impact Statement .................................................................................................................................. xiv
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1 – Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.1. TESOL and Computing: Historical Context.................................................................................. 3
1.1.2. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) ........................................................................... 3
1.1.2.1. CALL and Theory .................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.2.2. CALL as a Contextual Influence ........................................................................................... 5
1.1.3. Global Context............................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.4. A Disciplinary (and a Personal) Context ...................................................................................... 6
1.1.5. Local context ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.5.1. Australia ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.1.5.2. South Korea........................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................ 9
1.3. Importance and Relevance of the Study ........................................................................................... 10
1.4. Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 11
1.4.1. Background, Rationale, Theory and Methods ............................................................................. 11
1.4.2. Pre-intervention and Intervention Stages .................................................................................... 11
1.4.3. Post-Intervention Stage ............................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 –The Community of Inquiry Framework.............................................................................................. 13
2.1 Selecting an Appropriate Framework ................................................................................................ 13
2.1.1. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ................................................................................. 14
2.1.2. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) ........................................................ 15
2.1.3. The Community of Inquiry Framework ....................................................................................... 17
2.2. Using the CoI Framework .................................................................................................................. 24
2.2.1. Teaching Presence ....................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.2. Social Presence ........................................................................................................................... 27
2.2.3. Cognitive Presence ...................................................................................................................... 29
2.4. 2008: The Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument..................................................................... 31
2.5. 2008 – 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 35
2.5.1. Correlations and Causal Relationships....................................................................................... 36
2.5.2. A Fourth Presence? ..................................................................................................................... 38
2.5.3. Discipline-specific Differences .................................................................................................... 42
2.6. 2018 – 2022 ........................................................................................................................................... 43
2.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Chapter 3 – Multimodal Social Semiotics ................................................................................................................ 45
3.1 What is Multimodality? ....................................................................................................................... 45
3.2. Approaches to Multimodality ............................................................................................................ 47
3.2.1. Multimodal Interactional Analysis (MIA) ................................................................................... 47
3.2.2. Systemic Functional – Multimodal Discourse Analysis .............................................................. 48
3.2.3. Multimodal Social Semiotics ....................................................................................................... 48
3.3. Additional Approaches to Multimodality ......................................................................................... 48
3.4. Multimodal Social Semiotics: Aims and Core Concepts ................................................................. 49
3.4.1. Signs ............................................................................................................................................ 51
3.4.1.1. Peirce's Doctrine of Signs ................................................................................................... 51
3.4.1.2. Kress' Notion of The Motivated Sign .................................................................................. 52
3.4.2. Semiotic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 54
3.4.2.1. Mode.................................................................................................................................... 54
ii
3.4.2.2. Medium and Materiality...................................................................................................... 55
3.4.2.3. Semiotic Artefact ................................................................................................................. 55
3.4.3. Semiotic Practices ....................................................................................................................... 56
3.4.3.1. Site of Display ..................................................................................................................... 56
3.4.3.2 Constraints in Semiotic Practices ........................................................................................ 57
3.5. Multimodal Social Semiotics and Education .................................................................................... 57
3.5.1. Understanding Teaching and Learning as Multimodal Practices .............................................. 57
3.5.2. English in Urban Classrooms (Kress et al., 2005) ...................................................................... 58
3.5.3. Multimodality and Design in Education Contexts ....................................................................... 59
3.6. Social Semiotics and Teaching Practice ............................................................................................ 60
3.6.1. Multimodal Analysis of the Online Learning Environment ......................................................... 60
3.6.2 Integrating Social Semiotics and Other Perspectives in Classroom Practice ............................. 61
3.7. Multimodality and Teacher Education in TESOL .......................................................................... 64
3.7.1. An Example of Multimodal Professional Development ............................................................... 64
3.7.2. Multimodal Practice in Teacher Education ................................................................................ 65
3.7.3 Multimodal Pedagogy .................................................................................................................. 66
3.8. Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 67
3.9. The Research Gap: Multimodality, TESOL, and the COI framework ......................................... 68
Chapter 4 – Theory and Practice: Integrating Social Semiotics and The Community of Inquiry .................... 70
4.1 Theory and Practice: Integrating Social Semiotics and the Community of Inquiry ..................... 70
4.1.1. Social Constructivism .................................................................................................................. 72
4.1.2. Behaviourism ............................................................................................................................... 72
4.1.3 Cognitivism ................................................................................................................................... 73
4.1.4. Connectivism ............................................................................................................................... 74
4.1.5. An Integrative Model for Combining the CoI with Multimodality .............................................. 74
4.2 Defining the Semiotic Landscape of the OLE.................................................................................... 76
4.2.1. Text-as-complex-sign ................................................................................................................... 78
4.2.2. Typography .................................................................................................................................. 78
4.2.3. Icons and Emoji ........................................................................................................................... 80
4.2.4. Images.......................................................................................................................................... 81
4.2.5. Opportunities for Discussion ....................................................................................................... 82
4.2.6. Hyperlinks.................................................................................................................................... 82
4.2.7. Video ............................................................................................................................................ 83
4.2.8. Audio............................................................................................................................................ 83
4.2.9. Semiotic Software ........................................................................................................................ 84
4.2.9. Semiotic Software ........................................................................................................................ 85
4.3. Semiotic Resource Function ............................................................................................................... 85
4.4. Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 85
Chapter 5 – Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 89
5.1. Aims, Rationale, and Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 89
5.2. Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 90
5.3. Research Design .................................................................................................................................. 90
5.3.1. Pre-intervention Stage ................................................................................................................. 91
5.3.2. Professional Development Intervention ...................................................................................... 91
5.3.3. Post-intervention stage ................................................................................................................ 91
5.4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 93
5.4.1. Mixed Methods: Quantitative Vs. Qualitative ............................................................................. 93
5.4.1. Mixed Methods: Purpose ............................................................................................................. 94
5.4.2. Mixed Methods: Embedded Design ............................................................................................. 95
5.4.3. Mixed Methods in Multimodal Studies ........................................................................................ 95
5.4.4. Mixed Methods in TESOL ........................................................................................................... 96
5.4.5. Mixed Methods and the CoI ........................................................................................................ 96
5.4.5. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 97
5.5. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 97
5.5.1. Instructor-Participant Sampling and Recruitment ...................................................................... 97
5.5.2. Class A & B ................................................................................................................................. 98
5.5.3. Student-Participant Recruitment ................................................................................................. 98
5.5.4. Ethics ........................................................................................................................................... 98
5.5.5. Content Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 99
5.5.6. Semi-Structured Interviews ....................................................................................................... 104
5.5.7. Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument .................................................................................. 106
5.5.8. Anonymity .................................................................................................................................. 109
iii
5.6. Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 109
5.6.1. Validity ...................................................................................................................................... 109
5.6.2. Reliability .................................................................................................................................. 112
5.7. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 114
5.7.1. Content Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 114
5.7.2. Semi-structured Interview Data ................................................................................................ 114
5.7.3. Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument .................................................................................. 115
5.8. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 115
Chapter 6 – Pre-Intervention Survey of Practice ................................................................................................. 116
6.1. Content Analysis of Semiotic Resources in OLEs .......................................................................... 116
6.2. Results: Identifying Semiotic Resources in the OLE ..................................................................... 118
6.2.1. Typography ................................................................................................................................ 120
6.2.2. Images........................................................................................................................................ 120
6.2.3. Hyperlinks.................................................................................................................................. 120
6.2.4. Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 120
6.2.5. Video .......................................................................................................................................... 120
6.2.6. Icons & Emoji ............................................................................................................................ 121
6.3. Visualisation....................................................................................................................................... 121
6.3.1. Classes A & B (Michelle) .......................................................................................................... 122
Note: Class A and Class B are both taught by Instructor-participant Michelle. ................................ 124
6.3.2. Class C (Tayla) .......................................................................................................................... 124
6.3.3. Class D (Ben) ............................................................................................................................ 125
6.3.4. Class E (Sam) ............................................................................................................................ 126
6.3.5. Class F (Chloe).......................................................................................................................... 127
6.4. Results: Instructor-Participant Semi-Structured Interviews ....................................................... 128
6.4.1. Participant Profiles ................................................................................................................... 129
6.4.2. Themes Emerging from Instructor-Participant Interviews ....................................................... 131
6.4.2.1. Community of Inquiry Awareness ..................................................................................... 132
6.4.2.2. Type & Function of Semiotic Resources ........................................................................... 135
6.4.2.3. Discussion of Function in Interviews ................................................................................ 136
6.5 The Community of Inquiry Survey .................................................................................................. 140
6.6. Results: Responses to the CoI Statements ..................................................................................... 141
6.6.1. Teaching Presence ..................................................................................................................... 141
6.6.1.1. Design & Organisation. .................................................................................................... 142
6.6.1.2. Discourse facilitation. ....................................................................................................... 142
6.6.1.3. Direct instruction .............................................................................................................. 143
6.6.2. Social Presence ......................................................................................................................... 144
6.6.2.1. Affective expression........................................................................................................... 144
6.6.2.2. Open communication ........................................................................................................ 145
6.6.2.3. Group Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 146
6.6.3. Cognitive Presence .................................................................................................................... 147
6.6.3.1. Triggering & Exploration ................................................................................................. 147
6.6.3.2. Integration & Resolution .................................................................................................. 148
6.7. Presences & Their Subcategories for Each Class........................................................................... 150
6.7.1. Class A CoI Presences (Pre-intervention) ................................................................................ 150
6.7.2. Class B CoI Presences (Pre-intervention) ................................................................................ 151
6.7.3. Class C CoI Presences (Pre-intervention) ................................................................................ 153
6.7.4. Class D CoI Presences (Pre-intervention) ................................................................................ 154
6.7.5. Class E CoI Presences (Pre-intervention .................................................................................. 155
6.7.6. Class F CoI Presences (Pre-intervention) ................................................................................ 157
6.7.7. Classes A – F CoI Presences (Pre-intervention) ....................................................................... 158
6.8. Student Perceptions of Semiotic Resources Contributing to Presences ....................................... 160
6.8.1. Teaching Presence ..................................................................................................................... 161
6.8.1.1. Design and Organisation .................................................................................................. 161
6.8.1.2. Discourse Facilitation....................................................................................................... 162
6.8.1.3. Direct Instruction .............................................................................................................. 162
6.8.2. Social Presence ......................................................................................................................... 163
6.8.2.1. Affective Communication .................................................................................................. 163
6.8.2.2. Open Communication ....................................................................................................... 164
6.8.2.3. Group Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 165
6.8.3. Cognitive Presence .................................................................................................................... 166
6.8.3.1. Triggering Event & Exploration ....................................................................................... 166
6.8.3.2. Integration & Resolution .................................................................................................. 167
iv
6.9. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 168
Chapter 7 – Discussion: Initial Survey of Practice ............................................................................................... 170
7.1. Defining Exploitation ........................................................................................................................ 170
7.2. Refining Categorisation in the Content Analysis ........................................................................... 170
7.3. Semi-structured Interviews with Instructor-participants ............................................................. 172
7.3.1. Semiotic Software ...................................................................................................................... 173
7.3.2. Images & Video ......................................................................................................................... 174
7.3.3. Layout and UI Design: Instructors............................................................................................ 175
7.3.4. Fonts, Colours & Headings ....................................................................................................... 176
7.4. Functions of Semiotic Resources...................................................................................................... 180
7.5. Community of Inquiry Survey ......................................................................................................... 181
7.5.1. Written language ....................................................................................................................... 181
7.5.2. Student Perceptions of Overall (UI) Design of the OLE ........................................................... 183
7.5.3. Video .......................................................................................................................................... 184
7.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 185
Chapter 8 – A Professional Development Intervention. ....................................................................................... 187
8.1. Rationale ............................................................................................................................................ 188
8.2. Design, Development & Delivery ..................................................................................................... 189
8.2.1. Design ........................................................................................................................................ 190
8.2.1.1. Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 190
8.2.1.2. Learning Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 191
8.2.1.3. Structure and Assessment.................................................................................................. 192
8.2.2. Development .............................................................................................................................. 192
8.2.3. Participant Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 195
8.2.4. Delivery ..................................................................................................................................... 196
8.2.4.1. Cognitive Presence and the PIM ...................................................................................... 196
8.2.4.2. Social Presence ................................................................................................................. 197
8.2.4.3. Teaching Presence ............................................................................................................ 198
8.3. Semiotic Resources in the Professional Development Intervention ............................................. 203
8.3.1. Videoconferencing? ................................................................................................................... 207
8.3.2. Layout ........................................................................................................................................ 207
8.3.3. Icons and Emoji ......................................................................................................................... 209
8.3.4. Video .......................................................................................................................................... 211
8.4. Community of Inquiry Survey ......................................................................................................... 212
8.4.1. Demographics............................................................................................................................ 213
8.4.2. Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence ................................................................................ 213
8.5. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 216
Chapter 9 – Results: Post-intervention Survey of Practice .................................................................................. 217
9.1. Factors Influencing the Post-intervention Stage of the Study ...................................................... 218
9.2. Content Analysis Results: Comparison ........................................................................................... 218
9.2.1. Class A: Content Analysis ......................................................................................................... 218
9.2.2. Class B: Content Analysis ......................................................................................................... 219
9.2.3. Class C: Content Analysis ......................................................................................................... 222
9.2.4. Class D: Content Analysis ......................................................................................................... 224
9.2.5. Class E: Content Analysis ......................................................................................................... 224
9.2.6. Class F: Content Analysis ......................................................................................................... 228
9.3 The Community of Inquiry Survey Results: Comparison ............................................................. 229
9.3.1. Demographic data ..................................................................................................................... 229
9.3.2. Responses to Survey Items ......................................................................................................... 230
9.3.3. Teaching Presence ..................................................................................................................... 231
9.3.3.1. Design & Organisation ..................................................................................................... 231
9.3.3.2. Discourse Facilitation....................................................................................................... 232
9.3.3.3. Direct instruction .............................................................................................................. 234
9.3.4. Social Presence ......................................................................................................................... 235
9.3.4.1. Affective Communication .................................................................................................. 235
9.3.4.2. Open Communication ....................................................................................................... 237
9.3.4.3. Group Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 238
9.3.5. Cognitive Presence .................................................................................................................... 239
9.3.5.1. Triggering & Exploration ................................................................................................. 239
9.3.5.2. Integration & Resolution .................................................................................................. 239
9.4 Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 242
v
9.5. Classes A – F Results: Comparison ................................................................................................. 243
9.5.1. Class A & B – Michelle (Central University) ............................................................................ 243
9.5.1.1. Class A: Community of Inquiry Survey ............................................................................. 243
9.5.1.2. Class A: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences ............................ 245
9.5.1.3. Class B: Community of Inquiry Survey ............................................................................. 246
9.5.1.4. Class B: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences ............................ 247
9.5.1.5. Class A & B: Semi-Structured Interviews ......................................................................... 248
9.5.2. Class C – Ava (Central University) ........................................................................................... 250
9.5.2.1. Class C: Community of Inquiry Survey............................................................................. 250
9.5.2.2. Class C: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences ............................ 252
9.5.2.3 Class C: Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................. 253
9.5.3. Class D – Ben (Southern University) ........................................................................................ 254
9.5.3.1. Class D: Community of Inquiry Survey ............................................................................ 254
9.5.3.2. Class D: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences ............................ 255
9.5.3.3. Class D: Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................ 256
9.5.4. Class E – Zoe (Northern University) ......................................................................................... 258
9.5.4.1. Class E: Community of Inquiry Survey ............................................................................. 258
9.5.4.2. Class E: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences ............................ 259
9.5.4.3. Class E: Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................ 261
9.5.5. Class F – Chloe (Northern University) ..................................................................................... 262
9.5.5.1. Class F: Community of Inquiry Survey ............................................................................. 262
9.5.5.2. Class F: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences ............................ 264
9.5.5.3. Class F: Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................ 265
9.6. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 266
Chapter 10 – Post-intervention Survey of Practice Discussion ........................................................................... 268
10.1. What semiotic resources are exploited by online TESOL Instructors? Are the semiotic
resources used by instructors perceived by students as helping to establish teaching, social, and cognitive
presence? .............................................................................................................................................................. 268
10.1.1. The Dominance of Typography and Written Language in OLEs ............................................ 268
10.1.2. Non-linguistic Semiotic Resources in the OLE ....................................................................... 271
10.1.3. Non-Linguistic Resources Indicating Teaching, Social & Cognitive Presence: The case of
Video ................................................................................................................................................................. 273
10.2.4. Icons ....................................................................................................................................... 274
10.2.5. Discussion Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 275
10.2.6. Layout (UI/design)................................................................................................................... 276
10.2.7. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 277
10.3. RQ2 Does a targeted professional development intervention, focused on multimodality, assist
online TESOL instructors to implement semiotic resources and increase the level of the three CoI
presences in the OLE?......................................................................................................................................... 278
10.3.1. Changes in Frequency of Resource Use. ................................................................................. 280
10.3.2. The CoI Survey ........................................................................................................................ 281
10.3.3. Video ........................................................................................................................................ 284
10.6. Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 286
Chapter 11 – Implications, Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................ 288
11.1. Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 288
11.1.1. Written language is a Prominent Resource Exploited by Instructors ..................................... 289
11.1.2. Semiotic Resources .................................................................................................................. 289
11.1.3. Layout ...................................................................................................................................... 290
11.1.4. The Modified Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument ......................................................... 291
11.1.5. Professional Development ....................................................................................................... 291
11.2. Outcomes .......................................................................................................................................... 292
11.2.1 Multimodal outcomes ............................................................................................................... 292
11.2.2. Community of Inquiry Outcomes ............................................................................................. 293
11.2.3. TESOL Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 293
11.3 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 295
11.3.1. Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................ 295
11.3.1.1. Validity ............................................................................................................................ 295
11.3.1.2. Reliability ........................................................................................................................ 296
11.3.2. Participant Attrition ................................................................................................................ 296
11.3.3. Sampling .................................................................................................................................. 297
11.3.4. Generalisability ....................................................................................................................... 298
11.4. Future Research .............................................................................................................................. 298
vi
11.4.1. The Need for Online Teaching & Learning in Teacher Preparation ...................................... 298
11.4.2. Towards a Multimodal Pedagogy ........................................................................................... 299
11.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 300
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................. 302
Appendix A – Ethics Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 336
Instructor-Participants Based in Korea & Australia ........................................................................... 336
Student-Participants Based in Korea ..................................................................................................... 337
Student-Participants Based in Australia ................................................................................................ 338
Appendix B – Indicators of Presence ..................................................................................................................... 339
Appendix C – Semi-structured Interview Questions Stage 1 & Stage 3 ............................................................. 345
Pre-intervention Stage ............................................................................................................................. 345
Post-intervention Stage ............................................................................................................................ 346
Appendix D – Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (Modified)................................................................ 347
Appendix E – Community of Inquiry Survey Results (Online Teaching & Learning in TESOL – Professional
Development Intervention) ................................................................................................................................... 353
Appendix F – Coding Resources ............................................................................................................................. 357
vii
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1 Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). ......................................................................... 14
Figure 2.2 TPACK Framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) ........................................................................ 16
Figure 2.3 The (Simplified) Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000). .......................... 18
Figure 2.4 The Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al., 2000) ................................................................. 21
Figure 2.5a The Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000) .............................................. 30
Figure 2.5b Contemporary Visualisation of The Community of Inquiry Framework ................................ 31
Figure 2.6 Community of Inquiry Survey Studies Published 2008 – 2017 (Stenbom, 2018) .................... 35
Figure 3.1 Signifier & Signified (adapted from Saussure, 1966/2011) ...................................................... 51
Figure 3.2 Functionality Migration in the LMS (Derboven et al., 2017) ................................................... 61
Figure 3.3 The Research Gap: Multimodality, TESOL, & the COI ........................................................... 69
Figure 4.1 Theoretical Framework – The Multimodal Community of Inquiry .......................................... 75
Figure 4.2 The OLE Incorporating the LMS .............................................................................................. 77
Figure 4.3 Examples of Icon, Index, Symbol in Computing ...................................................................... 81
Figure 4.4 Language Laboratories Through the Ages: Audio in the OLE ................................................. 84
Figure 5.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 5.2 Triangulation of Qualitative & Quantitative Data ................................................................... 104
Figure 6.1 Pre-intervention Research Design ........................................................................................... 116
Figure 6.2 Examples of Bold Typeface for Coding .................................................................................. 118
Figure 6.3 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class A) Pre-intervention ......................................... 123
Figure 6.4 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class B) Pre-intervention ......................................... 124
Figure 6.5 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class C) Pre-intervention ......................................... 125
Figure 6.6 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class D) Pre-intervention ......................................... 126
Figure 6.7 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class E) Pre-intervention ......................................... 127
Figure 6.8 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class F) Pre-intervention.......................................... 128
Figure 6.9 Frequency of Discussion of Semiotic Resources – All instructors (Pre-intervention) ............ 136
Figure 6.10 Frequency of Discussion of Semiotic Resource Function – All Instructors (Stage One) ..... 137
Figure 6.11 Design & Organisation (Teaching Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) ................... 142
Figure 6.12 Discourse Facilitation (Teaching Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) ..................... 143
Figure 6.13 Direct Instruction (Teaching Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) ............................ 144
Figure 6.14 Affective Expression (Social Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) ........................... 145
Figure 6.15 Open Communication (Social Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) .......................... 146
Figure 6.16 Group Cohesion (Social Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) ................................... 147
Figure 6.17 Triggering Event & Exploration (Cognitive Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) .... 148
Figure 6.18 Integration & Resolution (Cognitive Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention) ............... 149
Figure 6.19a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class A (Pre-intervention) .......................................... 150
Figure 6.19b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class A (Pre-intervention) ................................... 151
Figure 6.20a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class B (Pre-Intervention............................................ 152
Figure 6.20b Community of Inquiry Subcategories– Class B (Pre-Intervention) .................................... 152
Figure 6.21a Community of Inquiry Presences– Class C (Pre-Intervention) ........................................... 153
Figure 6.21b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class C (Pre-Intervention) ................................... 153
Figure 6.22a Community of Inquiry Presences– Class D (Pre-intervention) ........................................... 154
Figure 6.22b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class D (Pre-Intervention) ................................... 155
Figure 6.23a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class E (Pre-Intervention) .......................................... 156
Figure 6.23b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class E (Pre-Intervention).................................... 156
Figure 6.24a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class F (Pre-Intervention) ........................................... 157
Figure 6.24b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class F (Pre-Intervention) .................................... 158
Figure 6.25a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention) .................................... 159
Figure 6.25b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention) ............................. 159
Figure 6.26 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Design & Organisation (All Students) Pre-Intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 161
Figure 6.27 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Discourse Facilitation (All Students) Pre-Intervention 162
Figure 6.28 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Direct Instruction (All Students) Pre-Intervention ...... 163
Figure 6.29 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Affective Expression (All Students) Pre-Intervention 164
Figure 6.30 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Open Communication (All Students) Pre-Intervention165
Figure 6.31 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Group Cohesion (All Students) Pre-Intervention ........ 166
viii
Figure 6.32 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Trigger Event & Exploration (All Students) Pre-
Intervention................................................................................................................................................ 167
Figure 6.33 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Integration & Resolution (All Students) S2 2019 ........ 168
Figure 7.1 Bootstrap (2022) Code for Alert Boxes ................................................................................... 177
Figure 7.1a Alert Boxes ............................................................................................................................. 178
Figure 7.2a Green Theme in Google Classroom ....................................................................................... 179
Figure 7.2b Orange Theme in Google Classroom ..................................................................................... 179
Figure 8.1 Intervention Research Design .................................................................................................. 187
Figure 8.2 The Abbreviated ADDIE Model Incorporating Ongoing Development ................................. 189
Figure 8.3 OTL in TESOL Structure Presented in Notion ........................................................................ 192
Figure 8.4 Discussion via Comments in Notion (Anonymised)................................................................ 193
Figure 8.5 Overview & Learning Outcomes in Notion ............................................................................. 194
Figure 8.6 Practical Inquiry Model (PIM) Core Concepts in Notion ........................................................ 194
Figure 8.7 Commenting in Notion............................................................................................................. 195
Figure 8.8 An Interactive Version of the Practical Inquiry Model............................................................ 197
Figure 8.9 The Practical Inquiry Model Overlayed with The Teaching & Learning Cycle ..................... 197
Figure 8.10 Concept Checking Tasks and Feedback in H5P .................................................................... 200
Figure 8.11 “SMART” Goal setting task created in H5P .......................................................................... 202
Figure 8.12 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Teaching Presence – All Classes, Pre-intervention ..... 204
Figure 8.13 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Social Presence – All Classes, Pre-intervention .......... 205
Figure 8.14 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Cognitive Presence – All Classes, Pre-intervention .... 206
Figure 8.15 Gangé’s (1971) Nine Events of Instruction vs. the PPP Lesson Sequence ............................ 208
Figure 8.16 Icon Use in OTL in TESOL ................................................................................................... 209
Figure 8.17 Use of the “Watch” Icon. ....................................................................................................... 210
Figure 8.18 Emoji Supporting Navigation ................................................................................................ 211
Figure 8.19a Community of Inquiry Presences – OTL In TESOL ........................................................... 215
Figure 8.19b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – OTL In TESOL .................................................... 215
Figure 9.1 Post-intervention Research Design .......................................................................................... 217
Figure 9.2 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class A Pre- & Post-intervention) ............................ 220
Figure 9.3 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class B Pre- & Post-intervention) ............................ 221
Figure 9.4 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class C Pre- & Post-intervention) ............................ 223
Figure 9.5 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class D Pre- & Post-intervention) ............................ 225
Figure 9.6 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class E Pre- & Post-intervention) ............................ 226
Figure 9.7 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class F Pre- & Post-intervention) ............................. 227
Figure 9.8 UI Card in Class F .................................................................................................................... 228
Figure 9.9 Design & Organisation (Teaching Presence) – All Students (Pre-intervention/Stage 1 and Post-
intervention/Stage 3) ................................................................................................................................. 232
Figure 9.10 Discourse Facilitation (Teaching Presence) – All Students (Pre-intervention/Stage 1 and Post-
intervention/Stage 3) ................................................................................................................................. 233
Figure 9.11 Direct Instruction (Teaching Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention) ................... 235
Figure 9.12 Affective Communication (Social Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention) .......... 236
Figure 9.13 Open Communication (Social Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)................. 237
Figure 9.14 Group Cohesion (Social Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention) .......................... 238
Figure 9.15 Triggering & Exploration (Cognitive Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention) ..... 240
Figure 9.16 Integration & Resolution (Cognitive Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention) ...... 241
Figure 9.17 t-Test for Two Independent Samples (Pre- & Post-intervention) / Two-tailed Test ............. 242
Figure 9.18a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class A Pre- & Post-intervention .................................. 244
Figure 9.18b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class A Pre- & Post-intervention .......................... 244
Figure 9.19 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class A Pre- & Post-intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 246
Figure 9.20a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class B Pre- & Post-intervention .................................. 247
Figure 9.20b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class B Pre- & Post-intervention .......................... 247
Figure 9.21 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class B Pre- & Post-intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 248
Figure 9.22a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class C Pre- & Post-intervention .................................. 251
Figure 9.22b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class C Pre- & Post-intervention .......................... 251
Figure 9.23 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class C Pre- & Post-intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 252
ix
Figure 9.24a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention ................................. 254
Figure 9.24b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention.......................... 255
Figure 9.25 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 255
Figure 9.26a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class E Pre- & Post-intervention .................................. 259
Figure 9.26b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class E Pre- & Post-intervention .......................... 259
Figure 9.27 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class E Pre- & Post-intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 260
Figure 9.28a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class F Pre- & Post-intervention .................................. 263
Figure 9.28b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention.......................... 263
Figure 9.29 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class F Pre- & Post-intervention
................................................................................................................................................................... 264
Figure 10.1 Teaching Presence in Class B ................................................................................................ 270
Figure 10.2 Total Frequency All Semiotic Resources All Classes Pre- and Post-intervention ................ 279
Figure 10.3 Mean Scores Presences Post-Intervention vs. Diaz et al. (2010) .......................................... 282
Figure 10.4 Presences Pre- & Post-intervention Classes A – F ................................................................ 283
Figure 10.5 Semiotic Resources – Frequency of Identification as Contributing to Presences ................. 284
Figure 10.6 Example of Integration During the Professional Development Intervention ........................ 285
Figure E.1 Design & Organisation (Teaching Presence) – OTL in TESOL............................................. 353
Figure E.2 Discourse Facilitation (Teaching Presence) - OTL in TESOL ............................................... 353
Figure E.3 Direct Instruction (Teaching Presence) - OTL in TESOL ...................................................... 354
Figure E.4 Affective Communication (Social Presence) - OTL in TESOL ............................................. 354
Figure E.5 Open Communication (Social Presence) - OTL in TESOL .................................................... 355
Figure E.6 Group Cohesion (Social Presence) - OTL in TESOL ............................................................. 355
Figure E.7 Triggering Event & Exploration (Cognitive Presence) - OTL in TESOL .............................. 356
Figure E.8 Integration & Resolution (Cognitive Presence) - OTL in TESOL ......................................... 356
Figure F.1 Coder 1 Class A “Assessments” Page Markup ....................................................................... 359
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Definitions of Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence........................................................... 19
Table 2.2 Significant Early Contributions to Defining the Community of Inquiry Framework ................ 23
Table 2.3 Select Studies Using the Community of Inquiry to Examine MOOCs ...................................... 26
Table 2.4 CoI Studies on Validation of the CoI Survey Instrument ........................................................... 33
Table 2.5 Studies Validating the CoI Survey Instrument in Non-English Contexts................................... 34
Table 2.6 Summary of CoI Studies 2008 - 2017 (Stenbom, 2018) ............................................................. 36
Table 2.7 Studies Examining Correlations & Causal Relationships in the CoI Framework ...................... 37
Table 2.8 Nth Presences .............................................................................................................................. 39
Table 3.1 Additional Approaches to Multimodality (Based on Jewitt et al., 2016) ................................... 49
Table 3.2 Development of Definitions of ‘Sign’, 1953 – 1997. ................................................................. 53
Table 4.1 (Online) TESOL Practice: Epistemological Influences on the CoI and Social Semiotics in Teacher
Education in TESOL ................................................................................................................................... 71
Table 4.2 A Grammar of Typography based on Stöckl (2005) .................................................................. 80
Table 4.3 Functions of Semiotics in the OLE Functions ............................................................................ 87
Table 5.1a Typography Coding Scheme (Based on Stöckl, 2005) ........................................................... 101
Table 5.1b Other Semiotic Resources Coding Scheme ............................................................................ 103
Table 5.2 Changes to the Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument ....................................................... 107
Table 5.3 Semiotic Resources added to the CoI Survey Instrument ......................................................... 108
Table 5.4 Key Coder Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 113
Table 6.1 Semiotic Resource Frequency Classes A-F (Pre-Intervention) ................................................ 119
Table 6.2 Semiotic Resource Use, Classes A-B (Pre-Intervention) ......................................................... 122
Table 6.3 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class C (Pre-Intervention)........................................... 124
Table 6.4 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class D (Pre-Intervention) .......................................... 125
Table 6.5 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class E (Pre-Intervention) ........................................... 126
Table 6.6 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class F (Pre-Intervention) ........................................... 127
Table 6.7 Participant Information ............................................................................................................. 129
Table 6.8 Interview Themes (i) – Community of Inquiry Awareness (Teaching Presence) .................... 132
x
Table 6.9 Interview Themes (ii) – Community of Inquiry Awareness (Social Presence) ........................ 133
Table 6.10 Interview Themes (iii) – Community of Inquiry Awareness (Cognitive Presence) ................ 134
Table 6.11 Discussion of Semiotic Resources & Function – Pre-intervention Semi Structured Interviews
................................................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 6.12 Student-Participants (Pre-Intervention) ................................................................................... 140
Table 6.13 Presence Items Mean Scores (Pre-intervention) ..................................................................... 141
Table 6.14 Community of Inquiry – Class A (Pre-Intervention) .............................................................. 151
Table 6.15 Community of Inquiry – Class B (Pre-Intervention)............................................................... 152
Table 6.16 Community of Inquiry – Class C (Pre-Intervention)............................................................... 154
Table 6.17 Community of Inquiry – Class D (Pre-Intervention) .............................................................. 155
Table 6.18 Community of Inquiry – Class E (Pre-Intervention) ............................................................... 157
Table 6.19 Community of Inquiry – Class F (Pre-Intervention) ............................................................... 158
Table 6.20a Community of Inquiry – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention) ...................................................... 160
Table 6.20b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention) ............................... 160
Table 7.1 Categorising Semiotic Resources in the Content Analysis ....................................................... 171
Table 7.2 Semiotic Resources Identified by Students as Contributing to Presences ................................ 181
Table 8.1 Design, Development & Delivery Approach ............................................................................ 189
Table 8.2 Professional Development Intervention Participants (OTL in TESOL) ................................... 214
Table 8.3 Community of Inquiry – OTL In TESOL ................................................................................. 215
Table 9.1 Student-Participants Pre- and Post-intervention........................................................................ 229
Table 9.2 Presences – Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D.) Pre- & Post-intervention ............................ 230
Table 9.3 t-Test for Two Independent Samples ........................................................................................ 242
Table 9.4 Respondents Per Class Pre-intervention (N1) & Post-intervention (N2) .................................. 243
Table 9.5 Community of Inquiry – Class A (Pre- & Post-intervention) ................................................... 245
Table 9.6 Community of Inquiry – Class B (Pre- & Post-intervention) ................................................... 246
Table 9.7 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Michelle – Class A & B) ............................................... 249
Table 9.8 Community of Inquiry – Class C (Pre- & Post-intervention) ................................................... 251
Table 9.9 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Ava – Class C) ............................................................... 253
Table 9.10 Community of Inquiry – Class D (Pre- & Post-intervention) ................................................. 254
Table 9.11 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Ben – Class D) ............................................................. 256
Table 9.12 Community of Inquiry – Class E (Pre- & Post-intervention) .................................................. 258
Table 9.13 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Zoe – Class E) ............................................................. 261
Table 9.14 Community of Inquiry – Class F (Pre- & Post-intervention) .................................................. 263
Table 9.15 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Chloe – Class F) .......................................................... 265
Table 10.1 Non-Linguistic Semiotic Resources Identified in Classes A – F ............................................ 271
Table 10.2 Examples of Hyperlinks in OLEs ............................................................................................ 272
Table 10.3 Social Presence Post-Intervention – Google Classroom, Moodle (Intervention – Notion) .... 276
Table 10.4 Semiotic Resources Identified by Students as Contributing to Presences (Post-intervention)
................................................................................................................................................................... 277
Table 10.5 Mean Scores Presences Post-Intervention vs. Diaz et al. (2010) ............................................ 281
Table 10.6 Presences – Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D.) Pre- & Post-intervention .......................... 282
Table B.1 Indicators of Teaching Presence ............................................................................................... 339
Table B.2 Indicators of Social Presence (Shea et al. 2010)....................................................................... 341
Table B.3 Indicators of Cognitive Presence (Shea et al. 2010) ................................................................ 343
Table F.1 Coder 1 Tally of semiotic resources Class A “Assessments” Page .......................................... 357
Table F.2 Semiotic Resources Coding Dictionary .................................................................................... 360
xi
Abstract
Online instructors have been underserved by existing research which seldom examines choices in
the design, development and implementation of an online learning environment (OLE). Online TESOL
instructors, in particular, whose needs include the implicit and explicit modelling of methods via the OLE,
require a means for examining their OLE, for determining the effectiveness of non-linguistic features that
can be used in the OLE, and for critically reflecting on their practice. These challenges have been thrown
into stark relief against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020 – 2021 where considerable
numbers of TESOL subjects (and subjects across all higher education disciplines) were moved to delivery
of their educational experiences online.
One influential approach to examining online teaching and learning (OTL) is the Community of
Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2001) and the concomitant CoI survey instrument (Arbaugh et
al., 2008). These provide a means for quantifying student perceptions of three so-called presences (teaching,
social and cognitive) that contribute to the development of critical inquiry skills among students in an OLE.
Since its conception, researchers, instructors, and educational designers have used this framework and its
survey instrument to concentrate on spoken and written language as the main measure of presence in an
online course. However, OTL affords instructors the use of multiple modes of meaning-making in addition
to written and spoken language. The impact of non-linguistic semiotic resources on CoI presences are not
well understood.
This thesis reports the findings of a three-year, three-stage mixed-methods study that:
1. Identifies how instructors exploit non-linguistic semiotic resources in training English language
teachers online.
2. Creates a professional development intervention that models the use of non-linguistic semiotic
resources to establish a CoI online.
3. Undertakes a survey of practice to measure the relative success of the intervention.
The study follows seven online TESOL instructors at three institutions in two different countries. Their
students were surveyed using a modified CoI survey instrument, and instructors’ OLEs were analysed
through the lens of multimodality. In response, a professional development intervention was designed and
delivered to instructors, before a second survey and content analysis measured the effectiveness of the
intervention.
The results of the study show that a shift in CoI presences, measured by mean responses to survey
items, occurred after the delivery of the professional development intervention. However, the non-linguistic
semiotic resources that instructors talk about as contributing to CoI presences in their OLE are not
necessarily the same ones that students perceive as contributing to the CoI presences. Furthermore, there is
potential for the aggregated results of the CoI survey to inform reflective practice undertaken by instructors.
Overall, the choices instructors make regarding semiotic resource use reflect their beliefs and values in
terms of TESOL pedagogy, the importance of modelling as a trainer, and the role of language teachers and,
indeed, of English in a global context.
Keywords: Applied Linguistics, Community of Inquiry, teaching presence, social presence, cognitive presence,
Multimodality, Social Semiotics, semiotic resource, mode, online teaching and learning, teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages, TESOL, Teacher education in TESOL.
xii
Candidate Statement
I certify that the work in this thesis entitled “A MULTIMODAL SOCIAL SEMIOTIC
APPROACH TO THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK Semiotic resources, presences,
and professional development for online teacher education in TESOL” has not previously been submitted
for a degree, nor has it been submitted as part of the requirements for a degree to any university or institution
other than Macquarie University.
I also certify that the thesis is an original piece of research, and it is written by me. Any help and
assistance I have received in my research work and the preparation of this thesis is appropriately
acknowledged.
I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis
The research presented in this thesis was approved by the Macquarie University Faculty of Human
Sciences Human Research Ethics Sub-Committee on 19 August 2019, reference number: 52019540910013.
Additionally, an Externally Approved Ethics Application was accepted by The University of Wollongong
on 28 September 2019, reference number: 2019/370. Finally, external researcher permission was granted
by the Graduate School of TESOL, Sookmyung Women’s University in October 2019 for the purpose of
data gathering related to this thesis.
Stafford Lumsden
Macquarie University, NSW
December 2022
xiii
Acknowledgements
There is a large group of people to whom I would like to offer my deepest thanks and gratitude for
their effort, assistance, encouragement, and support during my candidacy. Chief among them is my wife
Hwaeryeon whose patience and support throughout has been ceaseless.
I would like to thank my principal, then associate supervisor, Dr Helen Slatyer, (Honorary senior
lecturer, Dept. of Linguistics, Macquarie University), who has provided invaluable guidance throughout
both my M.Res. and PhD candidacies. Her willingness to take me on and supervise from a distance (first
as I conducted research in Korea, and then from her new home in the French countryside) has been key to
my success. Helen was quick to embrace our many online calls well before either of us had heard of Zoom,
and it’s fair to say that both of us never really thought about doing things any differently given the topic of
this thesis. Helen’s continuous efforts, patience, insight, thought provoking questioning and attention to
detail has provided me with an invaluable apprenticeship in academia that I will benefit from well beyond
the completion of this thesis.
I would also like to thank my associate, then principal supervisor, Dr Emilia Djonov (Senior
Lecturer, School of Education, Macquarie University) who has navigated some tricky waters on my behalf
at a time of almost constant change globally, locally, and institutionally. As roles changed and time marched
on, Emilia’s support has kept me on track in terms of my research program (most of the time!) and her
timely feedback has been on point, and challenged me in the best academic tradition.
I cannot express enough gratitude for the efforts of my friends and colleagues who agreed to
become participants in the study reported in this thesis. They will necessarily remain anonymous here, but
without their willingness to open up their online learning environments to me, answer my constant
questions and corral and otherwise organise their students to answer my surveys, is evidence of their
experience, knowledge, and commitment to our field. To the participants described herein Thank you for
your trust, your belief in me, and your belief in what I am doing will benefit our discipline.
There is also a large group of people who have made specific, individual contributions to my
research journey. Some have been very loud in their assistance, understanding, and overall cheerleading
including Dr Melinda Plumb and Dr Alyce Mason, while Associate Professor Margaret Wallace has offered
quiet encouragement and offers of help along the way. I have also been lucky to have the empathy and
support of several teams of educational developers and technologists across multiple institutions whom I
have worked with during my candidacy and who have entertained my occasionally “experimental” ideas
about online teaching and learning. I would also like to thank my PACE research intern Nance Mousa
(Macquarie University) whose assistance was invaluable.
It was with some sadness that we learned Gunther Kress, one of the founders of social semiotics,
passed away during the first year of my candidacy. It is my profound regret that I never got to speak with
him in person. English in Urban Classrooms: A Multimodal Perspective on Teaching and Learning (Kress
et al., 2004) and Reading Images (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) constitute my fundamental introduction to
the study of multimodality and social semiotics. Urban Classrooms was influential in showing me the link
that exists between my chosen field of applied linguistics, social semiotics and classroom practice and my
discovery of that link is reflected in the study reported here.
Finally, I would like to thank my examiners; Dr Phil Hubbard (Senior Lecturer Emeritus, Stanford
Language Center, Stanford University), Professor Kay O’Halloran (Chair Professor, Communication and
Media, University of Liverpool), and Professor Greg Kessler (Professor of Innovative Learning Design &
Technology / Computer Assisted Language Learning, Ohio University) whose detailed feedback has been
key in the preparation of the final version of this thesis.
Stafford Lumsden
Macquarie University, NSW
December 2022
xiv
COVID-19 Impact Statement
Dear Examiner,
Many of our HDR candidates have had to make changes to their research due to the impact of COVID-19.
Below you will find a statement from the candidate, approved by their Supervisory Panel, that indicates
how their original research plan has been affected by COVID-19 restrictions. Relevant ongoing restrictions
in place caused by COVID-19 will also be detailed by the candidate.
Thesis Title: A Multimodal Social Semiotic Approach to The Community of Inquiry Framework.
Candidate Name: Stafford H. Lumsden
Department: Department of Linguistics.
Statement:
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted my research and has caused the following
disruptions:
1. The central part of my research is a teaching intervention. Originally conceived as a face-to-
face series of workshops scheduled for mid-2020, this became impossible given the various
health orders and lockdowns in force at that time. As a result, the intervention had to be
redesigned completely for fully online delivery. Given the nature of the research – the use of
semiotic resources in online TESOL instructor training – and the participants being
practitioners and researchers in the field, the redesign was beneficial, but involved the building
of a custom LMS, careful planning of how to precisely model the ideas and concepts relevant
to the study online, monitoring the participants, responding to participants’ comments, and
grading tasks and providing feedback. None of this would have occurred in a face-to-face
context. In addition, the redesigned intervention required recruiting additional participants
because of the different mode it was delivered in (online versus face-to-face). An additional
12 participants were recruited.
2. Participant attrition. In mid-2020, two of my participants withdrew from the study partially
due to COVID-19. One, a sessional academic, had their position discontinued because of
institutional changes in the face of the pandemic. Another left their position to move closer to
family in one of the countries severely impacted by the pandemic. Both were replaced, but
recruitment in time for new participants to consider and give informed consent, and then join
the intervention in time for the second teaching session added time and considerable stress in
the middle of the study.
3. In addition, my (growing) expertise in online teaching and learning was called upon by no
fewer than three other institutions for help in shaping their response to the pandemic and
moving instruction to fully online delivery. While my research continued, the exceptional
circumstances of 2020 meant that sharing my knowledge was an important contribution to the
field. This included addressing the needs of instructors dealing with learners stranded outside
of Australia, and then for instructors rapidly moving to online delivery for students remaining
off-campus due to lockdowns and stay-at-home orders.
While it is an interesting time to be in the field, these factors have all had unanticipated and negative
impacts on my research. Prolonging the gathering of data and prolonging the completion of this thesis.
xv
Glossary
This study draws upon the language of numerous relevant disciplines to describe practice in online
teaching and learning. The key terms presented in this glossary are presented alphabetically and utilise
accepted or common definitions derived from the literature. In some instances, working definitions for a
term emerging from the research are used. The five most common abbreviations used throughout this thesis
are highlighted for the reader’s convenience.
Affective Communication
A subcategory of social presence – the use of conventional (and unconventional)
expressions of emotion online by participants in a community of Inquiry.
Affordance
(Multimodality studies)
Shaped by the materiality of a semiotic resource and the socio-cultural influence
on its meaning and use, affordance describes the potentials and constraints on a
resource to make meaning (Kress, 2010) i.e., what is possible to express with the
resource, (and what is not)?
ALM
Audio-Lingual Method
Asynchronous
(teaching/learning)
A general term used to describe teaching and learning that does not happen at the
same time or in the same place. In practice, asynchronous teaching and learning
usually utilises an online learning environment to share resources and facilitate
learning.
A common characteristic of this approach is the use of discussion forums for
instructors and students to communicate, respond to course content, and submit
assessment.
Audio
One of the non-linguistic semiotic resources that is the focus of this study.
Audio in the OLE is usually an audio file (e.g., MP3) students stream or
download to listen to. Audio may contain spoken language but not exclusively.
Music and other sounds are semiotic resources that may be present in an audio
file.
CALL
Computer Assisted Language Learning
CLT
Communicative Language Teaching
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence provides learners with the opportunity to construct meaning
through individual, pair/peer, small, and large group work in online and offline
modes. These opportunities manifest as tasks promoting higher-order thinking,
are active (and interactive), collaborative, and reflexive (Garrison et al, 2000;
Garrison, 2017)
CoI
Community of Inquiry Framework
Concept Checking
Questions (CCQs)
Questions frequently asked by language teachers and TESOL instructors eliciting
information from learners to gain a more accurate evaluation of their
understanding of an idea or concept.
An example of classroom discourse that is often planned prior to delivery of a
lesson.
Computer Conferencing
The use of networked computing and/or telephony to provide opportunities for
discussions between people in separate locations (see also:
Asynchronous[teaching/learning])
Conversation Analysis
Research methodology in multimodal studies focused on interaction and
utterances between interlocutors
COP
Community of Practice
Design & Organisation
A subcategory of teaching presence – setting Curriculum, planning how tasks will
unfold in lessons, establishing time parameters, utilising the medium effectively,
managing and communicating expectations of civility etc. (Garrison et al., 2000).
“All the things teachers do” (Lumsden, 2018)
Direct Instruction
A subcategory of teaching presence – presenting content, asking questions,
summarising discussion, confirming understanding. Diagnosing misconceptions,
injecting knowledge and personal experience, dealing with technical issues.
xvi
Discoursal/Affective
Refers to a semiotic resource functioning to elicit an emotional response from
students or elicit/prompt discussion about the content of the resource (e.g., asking
students to share how they feel about the content of a particularly emotive
photograph, or discuss a classroom layout with a partner from the perspective of a
language teacher with 40 students).
Discourse Facilitation
A subcategory of teaching presence – identifying dis/agreement, identifying
consensus, encouraging and acknowledging learner contributions, setting the
climate for learning, drawing participants into discussion, assessing the efficacy
pf the process.
Discussion
One of the non-linguistic semiotic resources that is the focus of this study.
A discussion forum or series of posts (or the opportunity to create a series of
posts) constitute “discussion” for the purposes of this study. Discussion usually
manifests in the OLE as a discussion forum or post.
Emoji
One of the non-linguistic semiotic resources that is the focus of this study.
Graphical symbols used in modern online communication (especially social
media and in messages) to convey thoughts and emotions to users. Emoji
Ensemble (of Semiotic
Resources)
More than one semiotic resource combined to form a sign and communicate a
meaning.
F2F
Face-to-face
Group Cohesion
A subcategory of social presence – members of the community use vocatives,
phatics etc. to refer to the group, address people by name, using inclusive
pronouns.
HTML5 Package
(H5P)
An open-source content collaboration framework using JavaScript that allows for
the authoring, sharing, and reuse of interactive learning tasks that can be
embedded in an LMS (Joubel, 2021)
Icons
One of the non-linguistic semiotic resources that is the focus of this study.
The definition of icon is not the classical Peircean one, but rather refers to
pictographic semiotic resources designed to aid in navigation of the OLE, identify
objects within the OLE or prompt students to undertake some sort of action. As
such, icons in this study are more likely indices or symbols in the Peircean sense.
Image
One of the non-linguistic semiotic resources that is the focus of this study.
An image is a reproduction of something that retains its likeness (Kress & van
Leeuwen, 1996). For the purposes of this study, image is expanded beyond
photographs and illustrations to also include graphs or charts as the action
instructors use to add charts in an LMS is usually to “add an image”.
Instructional
Refers to a semiotic resource functioning to covey subject-specific content or
provide further information to students e.g., a video walkthrough providing
instructions and suggestions for an assessment task.
Instruction Checking
Questions (ICQs)
Questions frequently asked by language teachers and TESOL instructors eliciting
information from learners to grasp their understanding of what they are expected
to do in a certain activity or task.
An example of classroom discourse that is often planned prior to delivery of a
lesson.
Instructor (TESOL)
Instructor is the term used in this study to identify individuals whose primary role
is educating (training) teachers. The “Instructor-participants” in this study are
TESOL instructors, whose students are pre- and in-service English language
teachers.
Language
In this thesis, language refers to spoken and written language which are linguistic
(or language-based) semiotic resources.
Layout
Layout can refer to the arrangement of objects, artefacts, or other phenomena
either in two or three dimensions (Kress, 2010). In this study layout is
synonymous with UI/Design for the most part and refers to the organisation of
learning content, objects, and semiotic resources on the page or on the screen in
the OLE.
Learner (TESOL)
In this study, a learner is a person engaged in formal or semi-formal English
language learning. This can occur in a range of contexts from formal academic
environments like schools and universities, to less formal environments such as
church or community led classes or language exchange practices in cafés.
xvii
Linguistic semiotic
resource
(See: Language)
Learning Management
System (LMS)
Materiality
In multimodal studies, semiotic resources are shaped and made concrete into
meaningful “stuff” by people seeking to communicate.
Mode
Mode is a term that is still debated.
In multimodal social semiotics mode refers to the “channel” of communication
being used (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) e.g., speech. For the most part, this
study uses semiotic resource (linguistic and non-linguistic) but acknowledges that
sometimes multiple semiotic resources might constitute a mode e.g., speech +
pitch + rhythm = singing.
Model (v.)
A teaching strategy wherein teachers explicitly show learners how to complete a
task before they begin the task.
Multimodal
Literally, more than one mode. In practice
Multimodal Interaction
Analysis
The study of multimodality from the perspective of how people interact with each
other. An approach derived from and that extends conversation analysis. (See:
conversation analysis).
Multimodal Studies
The study of multimodality through the use of one or more methodologies, for
example this study adopts a multimodal social semiotic approach rather than a
systemic functional – multimodal discourse analysis, or multimodal interaction
analysis one.
Navigational
Refers to a semiotic resource functioning to signpost navigational elements of the
OLE, especially when using a “you are here” approach to UI/design. Icons,
headings, and hyperlinks are examples of semiotic resources fulfilling a
navigational function.
Non-linguistic semiotic
resource
The focus of this study. Put simply, a non-linguistic semiotic resource is anything
that can be used to make and communicate meaning in a given context other than
language (see Language).
In this study, non-linguistic semiotic resources are the basic or fundamental
building blocks of communication available to instructors and students in the
OLE: Audio, Discussion, Images, Icons & Emoji, UI design, Typography, and
Video
OLE
Online Learning Environment. The OLE is the “space” in which interaction
between instructors and students takes place either synchronously or
asynchronously, where students complete tasks, and where assessment takes
place.
An OLE may encompass only an institution’s LMS, an LMS and other platforms
within an institution and/or on the wider public internet or exist completely on the
internet.
Open Communication
A subcategory of social presence – interactive communication incl. contributing
to and continuing message threads, quoting others, asking questions,
complimenting and expression agreement.
OTL
Online Teaching and Learning
PDF
Portable Document Format
Practical Inquiry Model,
The (PIM)
A learning sequence of four stages encouraging higher order thinking and inquiry:
1) Triggering event 2) Exploration 3) Integration and 4) Resolution.
Rather than subcategories, taken together the stages of the PIM make up cognitive
presence.
Semiotic Resource
Used to refer to a means of meaning-making, a semiotic resource is socio-
culturally and contextually defined.
Semiotic resources are the actions, materials, and objects used to communicate
meaning (van Leeuwen, 2004) and can be material (i.e., physical), physiological
(e.g., spoken language, or gesture), or derived technologically (e.g., those
semiotic resources occurring in an OLE as discussed in this study).
Sign
The means by which meaning is expressed by a sign maker and interpreted by an
audience.
xviii
Social Presence
“[T]he ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of
study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-
personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities”
(Garrison, 2009, p. 352).
Social Semiotics
A multidisciplinary approach that seeks to understand the social elements of
meaning, how meaning is produced, interpreted, and circulated, and its
implications (Jewitt et al, 2016, van Leeuwen, 2005).
Student (TESOL)
For the purposes of this study, a TESOL student is someone undertaking a
graduate-level certificate program in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages. On completion of the program, these students go on to be instructors
in their own right.
Synchronous
(teaching/learning)
Teaching and learning that takes place in the OLE in real time usually via
videoconferencing.
SFL
Systemic Functional Linguistics
SF-MDA
Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis
TBL/I
Task Based Learning/Instruction
Teaching Presence
Teaching presence reflects all the things teachers “do”: from planning at the
course and subject level, to facilitating interactions and discourse during an
individual task. Importantly, establishing social and cognitive presence within a
learning community is dependent on strong teaching presence.
TESOL
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
Typography
Typography refers to the visual design of written language and is considered a
semiotic resource in its own right. This study utilises a grammar of typography
developed by Stöckl (2005) and includes typeface, serif and sans serif font, type
size, type colour, bold, italics, underlining, etc.
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The study reported in this thesis represents an exploration of practice that aims to contribute to our
understanding of how the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework and multimodal social semiotics
manifest in online teaching and learning (OTL). This study aims to address how semiotic resources are
understood by TESOL instructors and how those instructors exploit semiotic resources in online learning
environments (OLEs). An understanding of the exploitation of semiotic resources in the OLE is necessary
for the design, development, and delivery of a professional development intervention supporting instructors
in using semiotic resources to the benefit of increased levels of so-called teaching, social and cognitive
presences in their OLEs. Fulfilment of these aims leads to a revised theoretical underpinning for the CoI
framework, a potential model for professional development focused on semiotic resources and the CoI, and
an enhanced understanding of the role of semiotic resources in the OLE in online teacher education in
TESOL contexts. This thesis therefore brings together two key and approaches, the CoI on one hand, and
multimodal social semiotics on the other, to describe the practice of a cohort of instructors engaged in
online teacher education in TESOL.
The CoI outlines the process for creating an online educational experience that promotes critical
reflection among a community of learners. To achieve this, an instructor, and to a lesser extent the learners
as equal members of a community of inquiry, must attend to teaching presence, social presence, and
cognitive presence – the constituent components of the CoI framework. The focus of this study is the use
of semiotic resources in the OLE. Specifically, it examines the use of non-linguistic semiotic resources in
online learning environments (OLEs) and their role in shaping teaching, social and cognitive presence.
The concept of the semiotic resource is taken from multimodality studies, a field of research
concerned with the socio-cultural processes surrounding communication and the representation of meaning.
In particular, multimodality recognises that different modes or resources can be used to represent meaning
and that language, either spoken or written, are just two of many such semiotic resources. Multimodality
provides us with numerous approaches and methods for the collection and analysis of data, some of which
are adopted in this study, and which I articulate below.
Viewed through a multimodal lens, traditional research into OTL has examined linguistic semiotic
resources, predominantly written, and sometimes spoken, language in the OLE. Such research has provided
invaluable understanding of students’ perceptions of online teaching and learning practices (e.g., Martin et
al., 2019) and both teachers’ and students’ satisfaction with OTL (e.g., Alqurashi, 2018; Bolliger et al.,
2010). Furthermore, analyses based on written language have identified affordances of OTL for teacher
education (Downing et al., 2019), allowing practitioners to overcome the challenges inherent in teaching
online (e.g., Baran & Al Zoubi, 2020; Limperos et al., 2015). However, while concentrating solely on
written language may have been appropriate in examining early examples of OLT, advances in computing
and networking mean that it is now easy to integrate a wider range of semiotic resources and modes into
2
the OLE. This raises the question: How do non-linguistic resources such as typography, or images, or audio
contribute to successful experiences in OTL, and more specifically to the creation of a community of
inquiry? Data collection occurred between May 2019 and the end of 2021 with the majority of that time
Coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic – arguably one of the most challenging times for higher
education in modern history. A known and documented consequence of the pandemic is the increase in
teachers delivering educational content online, and institutions are indicating that they intend to continue
such delivery, placing more emphasis than ever before on the flexibility and personalisation that online
learning affords students (Heller, 2022). Institutions have also identified significant savings realised by
delivering subjects online. With this in mind, the present study comes at an opportune time.
In this chapter, I provide the background to the study and the historical, global and local contexts
in which it takes place. The research questions that the study seeks to address are also presented in
preparation for a discussion of the literature in Chapters 2 and 3. I also argue for the relevance and
importance of this study for teacher educators engaged in online instruction and more broadly, any
instructor in any field teaching online, and describe its rationale and aims. Next, I articulate the two research
questions that underline the study’s design. The chapter concludes with a brief outline of the thesis.
1.1. Background
The study reported here is a continuation of my examination of the relationship between teaching
presence, the design, organisational, discoursal, and instructional components of teaching (Garrison et al.,
2000), and online instructor satisfaction (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2004) in synchronous, videoconference
TESOL instruction (Lumsden, 2018). In that study, I found that instructors who scored highly on the online
instructor satisfaction measure (Bolliger et al., 2010) were likely to exhibit more indicators of teaching
presence than those who scored lower. Online instructor satisfaction is a complex phenomenon, taking
place in a semiotically diverse space – the online learning environment. As noted above, researchers,
including myself, have tended to rely on one or two modes of communication, written language (and to a
lesser extent spoken language) to draw conclusions about OTL. I noted this problem in relation to
[T]he analysis of videoconferencing, [which] found that the existing, linguistics-based
[examination of the] Community of Inquiry framework may be insufficient for detailed
identification and analysis of phenomena.
(Lumsden, 2018, p. 79)
The phenomena I am referring to are those that communicate meaning without relying on language. While
this initial examination focused only on videoconferencing, the idea that communicative phenomena other
than written and spoken language were critical to the communication of meaning in the online environment
led me to seek an approach that would enable me to examine all of OTL. How might we achieve this? I
concluded:
Multimodal approaches to the examination of videoconference lessons need to be
developed that use the established indicators of teaching presence, but also other indicators,
such as instructor on-screen behaviours, that are specific to this relatively new form of
teaching and learning.
(Lumsden, 2018, p. 80)
3
However, it is possible that my conclusion is somewhat limiting. The multimodal approaches described in
that study (incorporating both linguistic and non-linguistic indicators of presence) can be applied not only
to videoconferencing but also to other aspects of online instruction, whether delivered synchronously or
asynchronously, containing fully online, blended or flipped elements, and in OLEs where written language
is the dominant means of communication. To achieve this, a better understanding of the role and function
of non-linguistic resources, such as colour, font types, and layout, identifying which of these are present in
the OLE, and perhaps establishing how semiotic resources function in the OLE, would seem to be an
appropriate next step from the findings reported in Lumsden (2018). The present study, therefore, represents
that next step towards an integrated multimodal understanding of a CoI encompassing non-linguistic
semiotic resources as indicators of the three presences in addition to linguistic ones. While my discussion
of online instructor satisfaction and teaching presence in 2018 could be applied more broadly, or perhaps
to education in general, my particular focus here is teacher education in TESOL. Thus, before expanding
on why the present study is conducted within a TESOL context, it is useful to consider a brief summary of
the historical context of the application of computing to applied linguistics and especially English language
teaching.
1.1.1. TESOL and Computing: Historical Context
Since the 1980s, there has been “tremendous growth” (Crandall & Christison, 2016, p. 3) in
research about teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). A large segment of this research
focuses on the practice of teaching, meaning that it concentrates largely on behaviours and phenomena
observed in classrooms. The early 1980s also marked a turning point for computer assisted language
learning (CALL), when language teachers, with improved access to new desktop microcomputers, began
to “tinker” with and create computer programs in support of students’ language learning (Hubbard & Levy,
2016, p. 24). Twenty years later when I began my professional life as an English teacher, the availability
of (reasonably) cheap internet and networked computing motivated even more research into technology
and TESOL. Among the topics of interest among researchers initially were online resources in second
language teaching (e.g., Hickok, 2005; Son, 2011) and, very quickly thereafter, OTL (e.g., Jun & Lee,
2012). These topics have started to occupy an increasingly larger space in the literature (Velverde-
Berrocoso et al., 2020). Studies like the present one that focus on the instructors who train pre- and in-
service English teachers have continued to appear in the literature since the early 2010s (e.g., England,
2012; Cullen et al., 2013) and occupy an important, albeit small place in the TESOL literature (e.g.,
Almuhaimeed, 2022; Demir & Koçyiğit, 2018). Notwithstanding the paucity of literature in comparison to
other topics of investigation, I argue that findings from research that examines English language teachers
apply equally to the people who trained them.
1.1.2. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
At the core of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) as a field is the need to identify
ways to optimally implement technology in the practice of language teaching (Chen et al., 2021 p. 152).
This kind of pragmatism, finding the right tool for the job, or adopting a “horses for courses” approach
4
(Rubadeau, 2018) to employing technology in language learning, has led to the development of a large
body of literature devoted to examining the role of computers in language learning. The pursuit of optimal
implementation of technology for language learning was initially the domain of so-called “tinkerers”
(Hubbard & Levy, 2016 p. 24), language teachers who were early adopters of the microcomputer in the
1980s. Since then, CALL has developed into a dynamic field of study mirroring the rapid development of
technology, and its implementation in language learning, especially in the period 1997 – 2022.
Early CALL literature focused on the search for and use of computing applications in language
teaching and learning (Levy, 1997, p. 1). By 2005, the definition of CALL had expanded to include “the
development and use of technology applications in language teaching and learning” (Levy & Hubbard,
2005, p. 143). Contemporaneous with Levy and Hubbard, Egbert provided a broader definition of CALL
that involved “learners learning language in any context with, through, and around computer technologies”
(Egbert, 2005, p. 4). While it is broad, this definition has the advantage of placing learners at the centre of
the action, which makes it consistent with communicative approaches to language learning where teachers
plan lessons that afford learners the opportunity to not only produce language but negotiate meaning as
well. Finally, Hubbard (2009) took things one step further to include “any computer technology” used by
learners and teachers in “any language learning context” (Hubbard, 2009, p.2). This definition of CALL
recognises that computer technology is not confined to desktop computers. Nor does it confine language
learning to a classroom environment. Hubbard’s (2009) definition came less than two years after the release
of Apple’s first iPhone in 2007 which, along with other “sophisticated mobile devices” (Stockwell, 2022,
p. i) that followed soon after, would herald the birth of a sub-discipline of CALL, namely Mobile Assisted
Language Learning (MALL) (e.g., Levy & Stockwell, 2006; Stockwell, 2022).
1.1.2.1. CALL and Theory
CALL is often described as a branch of Applied Linguistics (e.g., Chappelle, 1997 ; Hubbard &
Levy, 2016). Hence the potential for CALL to be relevant to the present study. Specifically, Hubbard and
Levy (2016) and Levy and Stockwell (2006) consider CALL to be borne out of second language acquisition
(SLA) theory because of a shared foundation of research, theory, and practice. Interaction theory, which
posits that language production and negotiation of meaning between interlocutors are essential to language
learning (e.g., Long 1996), also exerts influence on CALL.
Interaction is also a critical component for learning according to Vygotsky (1978). Sociocultural
theories of learning that underscore CALL suggest that the cognitive change associated with learning is
mediated by “symbols” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89). While common, mediating symbols are not always
language. Human behaviour can mediate communication (consider the actions of a teacher, other than
speaking or writing, that scaffold learner understanding for example). Likewise, a computer, mobile phone,
or tablet device have the potential to mediate communication. If we apply a sociocultural perspective to
language learning, we acknowledge that computers, phones, and tablets mediate communication differently
from a textbook, words on a whiteboard, or the actions and behaviours a person. Each has different
affordances that restrict or expand communicative potential from what is communicated to how it is
5
communicated (Hutchby 2001; Smith 2003). In other words, technologies such as computers, phones, and
tablets do not determine interaction, but the attributes of each do help shape interaction (Hubbard & Levy,
2016, p. 30).
The interest in technology shared among CALL practitioners and CALL’s foundation in applied
linguistics belies the fact that CALL is not a unified field of study and does not harbour a cohesive, single
theory applicable to computer use in language learning. That is not necessarily problematic if a pragmatic
approach to the use of technology in language learning is a positive response to the needs of learners or is
done in the pursuit of helping students to reach a desired learning outcome. However, as a basis for
examining an OLE, and specifically instructor practice in an OLE, CALL does not provide a “best answer”.
This is a point conceded by Hubbard and Levy when they warned “Scholars new to the field (and indeed
some who are not so new) who are looking for the ‘truth’ that theories [of CALL] seem to promise, will
not find it” (2016, p. 34).
1.1.2.2. CALL as a Contextual Influence
CALL borrows, adapts, builds ensembles, synthesises, and refines existing theories as they apply
to the optimal, pragmatic utilisation of technology in language learning (Hubbard & Levy, 2016, p. 26-28).
While CALL is an influence on the present study, discussion of the complexities of CALL theory
development and research is beyond the scope of this thesis. Rather than focus on language learning that
involves “any computer technology” and occurs in “any language learning context” (Hubbard, 2009, p.2),
the present study examines very specific technologies, namely technologies that enable communication in
the service of teaching pre- and in-service teachers, and a specific context, teacher education in TESOL.
CALL is an influence on this study because teacher education in TESOL is intrinsically linked to language
learning and because in this case I am observing teacher education being carried out using technology.
However, this is not a “CALL study”. Instead, it is a study employing a multimodal approach.
Unlike CALL, multimodality provides a cohesive approach to research and has been used by
researchers to examine numerous educational contexts across multiple disciplines. CALL provides
practitioners with the means to pragmatically and optimally employ technology in their teaching, but CALL
does not offer researchers much to work with in terms of examining phenomena beyond language learning.
My use of TESOL as a research context is based on familiarity, convenience and accessibility, and a
considerable body of literature that goes beyond CALL (see §1.1.4) and there is the potential for the practice
observed in this study to have application in other disciplines employing teaching and learning online.
1.1.3. Global Context
In United States higher education in 2018, more than 20 million students were studying in online
environments (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Just two years later, the number of learners impacted by
global school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic and engaging in at least one form of online learning
reached 1.38 billion (World Economic Forum, 2020). Spending on educational technology – the tools,
software, and infrastructure that facilitate technology-enhanced learning (TEL), including online learning
6
– is forecast to grow to USD$404 billion by 2025, up from the USD$227 billion spent in 2020 (HolonIQ,
2021). More specifically, if we consider the global online ESL market, estimates suggest that it was worth
some USD$13 billion in 2021, representing 1.7 billion adult and 410 million young learners around the
globe (J’son & Partners, 2021). Growth in the number of language learners globally and continued spending
on educational technology (which includes expenditure on technologies specific to English language
learning) necessitates a larger pool of language teachers versed in using technology to address the increase
in demand. Consequently, a greater number of TESOL instructors are required to train English language
teachers.
1.1.4. A Disciplinary (and a Personal) Context
As noted earlier (§1.1.), the primary disciplinary context of the present study is teacher education
in TESOL, which is concerned with the training of pre-service and in-service English language teachers.
The designation “pre-service” refers to individuals with no formal prior teaching experience and, in the
case of this study, completing their first TESOL qualification. “In-service” teachers are those who have
formal teaching experience who are updating qualifications, up-skilling, or changing specialisations to
English language teaching from another field. With almost two decades of experience as an English teacher
and TESOL instructor, teacher education in TESOL is a context that I am intimately familiar with, making
it a natural “home” for my research. The instructor-participants in this study are my peers, and I am all too
familiar with the constraints and frustrations they experience in the design, development and delivery of
TESOL courses online. Since 2018, my work as an educational developer has provided me with multiple
other perspectives, including an in-depth understanding of multiple learning management systems (LMS)
and the design and development of previously face-to-face subjects for online delivery. Thus, the choice of
online teacher education in TESOL as the field in which to conduct this study is a case of “[w]rite what
you know” (Twain, 1982) and, indeed, of researching what I know (Cohen et al., 2011).
As a context for research, TESOL provides numerous advantages. Computer-mediated
communication (CMC) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL) have been the subject of a
considerable body of literature built over more than five decades (e.g., Cazden, 1990; Daud & Husin, 2004;
Hata, 2003; Hubbard, 2007; 2021; Hubbard & Levy, 2006; 2016; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Reed, 1973;
Salaberryu, 1996; Shishkovskaya and Sokolova 2015; Warschauer & Cook, 1999; Zenouzagh, 2022).
TESOL scholars have been concerned with the implications for practice resulting from the use of
computers, and more recently networked computing, in teaching English and teacher preparation (e.g.,
Hubbard, 2013, 2021; Hubbard & Levy, 2006, 2016). This research and, importantly, practice over an
extended period, makes teacher education in TESOL a particularly fertile ground for an examination of
semiotic resources and their compatibility with the CoI for examining OTL. Moreover, TESOL, at its core,
is concerned with communication and, specifically, enabling communication through interaction. This
aligns well with the other framework employed in this study - multimodal social semiotics, which is
concerned with meaning-making, meaning-makers across various contexts, and how different modes of
communication are developed to represent understanding (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2009).
7
The TESOL literature reports the use of multiple modes of representation in instructors’ practice
over a similar, decades-long period, which is to say that English teachers are familiar with using multimodal
approaches in their teaching. Examples include the use of images and the relationship between images and
written language in developing receptive (reading) skills (e.g., Bilki & Plakans, 2022; Liu, 2004; Richards,
2000), the relationship between the visual and verbal in developing learner comprehension (e.g. Royce,
2002; 2007), the use of video in reading comprehension (e.g., Saedi & Ahmadi, 2016; Shih, 1992), and the
use of realia and other artifacts in activating learners’ background knowledge (e.g., Young, 1991) and
making new input comprehensible (Krashan, 1984). It is my contention that the research reported in the
literature and the long history of practice in distance learning, “e-learning”, and “distance teacher education
in TESOL” (collectively: OTL) that informs that research, prepared practitioners in the field for weathering
the impact of the pandemic storm in 2020.
Finally, as a field, teacher education in TESOL places reflective practice at the core of professional
development, and like other areas is served by a considerable body of literature. The nature of reflective
practice means that it is utilised across almost every aspect of teaching and teacher training: experiences of
novice and first-year teachers (e.g., Farrell, 2016a, 2016d; Farrell & Kennedy, 2019), teaching reading,
writing, listening, and speaking (e.g., Farrell, 2009b), the importance of reflection in teacher education
programs (e.g., Brandt, 2006; Farrell, 2016c, 2012c), reflective practice in research and practice (e.g.,
Farrell, 2017j, 2018c Richards & Farrell, 2007), and the influence of Dewey and Schön on reflective
practice (Farrell, 2007b, 2018b, 2019b; Hébert, 2015).
While both the implications for practice and the classroom outcomes of the introduction of CMC
and then CALL, and most recently online TESOL, continue to be of interest to scholars, as reflected in the
literature, there is little research that explores professional development and OLE, let alone helping
instructors to reflect on their practice. Reflections from students are often used in reporting on the relative
success of online graduate TESOL programs but are used to evaluate learning and teaching in terms of the
ability to replicate face-to-face practice within the OLE (e.g., Ates et al., 2021). Using the OLE as a space
where reflection and professional development takes place is also a feature of reflective practice in TESOL
literature (e.g., Brooke, 2014). However, this again speaks to what is happening in the OLE relating it to
specific choices instructors make or the way semiotic resources function in the OLE. Hence, there is new
ground to be covered in this study marrying what we know about professional development and reflective
practice, and what professional development can do in terms of helping instructors reflect on their use of
the OLE to the benefit of increasing the CoI teaching presences.
1.1.5. Local context
Against the backdrop of the broader historical and global context, we come to the present study. A
total of seven TESOL instructors and 121 students from three different institutions in two countries,
Australia and South Korea, were recruited for the study. A brief overview of the status of TESOL in each
country is provided below. Detailed profiles of each of the instructors, students, and their institutions is
provided in Chapter 6 (see §6.4.1.).
8
1.1.5.1. Australia
In 2019, there were 169,864 adult learners 18 years or older attending 166 institutions delivering
English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) (Department of Education, Skills
and Employment, 2020). In NSW, a further 136,000 refugee and migrant students received English
instruction in primary and secondary schools. While there has been a decline in the number of students in
ELICOS courses in the period 2018-2021, teacher numbers have remained mostly steady during that period,
with incoming teacher graduates entering the field at a slightly lower rate than teachers leaving the field.
There is also a smaller number of teachers engaged in retraining or moving to specialise in English language
teaching (NEAS, 2021) from other subject areas. These are our so-called “in-service English teachers”
described throughout this study.
English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers in Australia receive training in TESOL by
completing a graduate level certificate1 program. Such programs cover the fundamental aspects of English
language teaching, commonly referred to as “TESOL Methods”, curriculum and lesson planning, second
language acquisition theory, and various other related subjects in linguistics, phonology for example, and
applied linguistics, for example classroom management which students can choose to do electively. Online
teacher education in TESOL has been offered online by at least two Australian institutions since 2009 (Hall
& Knox, 2009).
1.1.5.2. South Korea2
South Korea has one of the highest rates of tertiary education participation in the OECD, with
almost 50% of adults attending approximately 330 universities (OECD, 2016). In 2017, some 330,000
students were enrolled in courses of study at the graduate level. In addition to higher education contexts,
there is also an extensive supplementary education sector in Korea of which English education makes up a
large component. Supplementary English education in Korea is characterised by private and franchise
“cram schools” and “hakwon”, catering to students of all ages and levels preparing for proficiency
examinations such as TOEIC, TOEFL and IELTS, to education catering to less high-stakes motivations
such as conversation classes.
Teacher education in TESOL in Korea, like Australia, occurs mostly at the graduate level. Students
are admitted to programs after having already completed an undergraduate degree and being able to
demonstrate English proficiency equivalent to B2 on the Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR). While not compulsory, students usually come to graduate level TESOL courses with some
teaching experience or at least informal (for example private tutoring) experience in language teaching.
1 The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013) describes Bachelor (Honours) degrees,
Graduate Certificates, and Graduate Diplomas at level 8, and master’s degrees at level 9.
2 “South Korea” is the term commonly used in English to refer to The Republic of Korea (Korean: 대한민국), as distinct from The
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK (조선민주주의인민공화국) or North Korea. In the data analysis and discussion
below, it is expedient to talk about “Korea”. In these instances, I am talking about South Korea unless otherwise noted.
9
While we have seen a decline in student numbers in Australia, even prior to the pandemic, the number of
enrolments has remained mostly steady at institutions like Central University (discussed below) and
increased slightly during the pandemic as fewer so-called Native English Speaking Teachers (NESTs –
graduates from the United States, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and
South Africa) were employed due to travel restrictions preventing them from taking up positions in Korea.
In addition, a growing population of Korean Millennial and Generation Z students, who have studied
outside of Korea for some or all of their primary, secondary and tertiary education, continue to enrol in
graduate certificate TESOL programs as a means of securing a job teaching English or to be able to teach
English on a short or part-time basis while searching for a job in their chosen field, for example.
This dynamic historical, global, disciplinary, personal, and local context in Korea and Australia
sets the scene and provides insight into my personal rationale behind this study. The next section articulates
the research questions that underpin it.
1.2 Research Questions
The scope and focus of this study is defined by two research questions. These questions, designated
RQ1 and RQ2, are as follows:
RQ1: What semiotic resources are exploited by online TESOL Instructors? Are these semiotic
resources perceived by students as helping to establish teaching, social and cognitive presence?
RQ2: Does a targeted professional development intervention, focused on multimodality, assist
online TESOL instructors to implement semiotic resources and increase the level of the three CoI
presences in the OLE?
RQ1 consists of two parts. The first focuses on instructor practice and the second on student
perceptions. Specifically, the first part is addressed through the identification, categorisation, and
enumeration of semiotic resources present in an OLE, and how those resources are used by instructors. The
second part focuses on students’ perceptions of these semiotic resources and how they contribute to
teaching, social, and cognitive presence. It is likely that instructor practice and student perception develop
in parallel, rather than sequentially, given the cyclical nature of design, development, and delivery of online
teaching described in Fig. 8.2. RQ2 seeks to evaluate the efficacy of a professional development
intervention by comparing instructor-participants' OLEs and identifying changes in the type, category, and
number of semiotic resources present, and whether there is a change in perceptions reported by students.
A ‘survey of practice’ aims to describe a context at a given point or over a period of time by using
contextually appropriate data-gathering methods. The two surveys of practice undertaken in the present
study, before and after the professional development intervention, use content analysis of OLEs and semi-
structured interviews with instructor-participants to uncover what semiotic resources are exploited by
instructors in their OLEs and the rationale behind that use.
10
In this study, each survey of practice encompasses a content analysis of OLEs, interviews with
instructor-participants, and the administration of the CoI survey instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008) adapted
to examine students’ perceptions of different semiotic resources. Each survey of practice thus incorporates
the Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey instrument, which I refer to as ‘the survey’ and describe in detail
in §2.4.
The CoI survey instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008), administered to students, provides quantitative
data and elicits the relative levels of teaching, social, and cognitive presence as well as students’ perceptions
of how different semiotic resources contribute to establishing those presences. Both the qualitative and
quantitative data gathered in the first stage of the study inform the development of an intervention, the
efficacy of which is addressed by repeating the survey of practice and comparing the results to the survey
of practice conducted in the pre-intervention stage. The scope of the study is also dictated by the research
questions. The OLE constitutes the unit of analysis for the survey of practice. For the purpose of the study,
this means that the data that are gathered and analysed are from the LMS used by each instructor or
institution.
1.3. Importance and Relevance of the Study
The importance of this study is twofold. Firstly, the study provides an opportunity to advance our
understanding of the CoI framework and social semiotics as they apply to practice in OTL. Secondly, by
comparing data gathered before and after the intervention, there is the ability to observe changes in practice
among the instructor-participants in their OLEs. Observing positive change would reveal an appropriate
model for professional development in OTL and the use of semiotic resources in the establishment of the
CoI. To achieve this, the scope of the study is purposefully limited to the identification, enumeration, and
categorisation of a specific set of fundamental non-linguistic semiotic resources present in OLEs. This is
an important first step towards a much broader integration of social semiotics with the CoI. In particular,
the role semiotic resources play in indicating and contributing to teaching, social and cognitive presence.
While studies of multimodal social semiotics have interrogated the different modes used for communicating
meaning during instruction, as well as the different mediums, and sites of display (e.g., Jewitt et al., 2001;
Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001, 2006), little has appeared in the literature that contributes to our knowledge
of how instructors use semiotic resources, or the impact of focused professional development and reflection
might have on how instructors exploit resources. Likewise, research revealing students’ perceptions of
semiotic resources and the impact on the CoI presences is described here for the first time.
The relevance of the present study is based on a much more pragmatic need: helping instructors
build their understanding of semiotic resources and by doing so increase their capacity to exploit the
resources in the name of increasing teaching, social and cognitive presence within the OLE. The CoI
framework is already an established framework for designing, developing, and delivering instances of
online learning, but I believe the framework also has the potential to act as a reflective practice tool, alerting
instructors to their relative strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis their efforts to establish and maintain each
of the presences. At the same time, research into multimodal social semiotics, and the function of semiotic
11
resources in the OLE is still in its infancy. Social semiotics is concerned with the way people communicate
meaning and how this reveals socio-cultural influences and power relations between interlocutors. In this
instance, semiotic resources, which I suggest are the basic building blocks people use to make meaning and
communicate in the OLE, are key to how TESOL instructors facilitate discourse in the OLE, provide direct
instruction, grow a sense of group cohesion, and challenge students to think critically about content. This
interrelationship between semiotic resources and what are subcategories of the CoI framework has not been
studied to any extent.
1.4. Structure
1.4.1. Background, Rationale, Theory and Methods
The structure of the thesis is mostly conventional and reflects the three stages of my PhD project’s
research design. An element of the underlying theory pertaining to the CoI is provided alongside a review
of the CoI literature in Chapter 2. Key points in the development of the framework are highlighted,
especially when they have influence on or relevance to the present study. The literature on multimodal
social semiotics relevant to OTL and teacher education in TESOL is examined in Chapter 3, prefaced by a
description of the core concepts of multimodality, in order to justify why the social semiotic approach
provides an appropriate lens through which to identify and analyse the use of non-linguistic semiotic
resources in an OLE.
Chapter 4 outlines my development of the theoretical framework that informs the study. Bringing
together concepts from two seemingly disparate domains, social semiotics and the CoI framework, requires
a measured approach. Thus, I highlight the similarities and connections between equivalent concepts from
the two approaches, clearly differentiating those that may be problematic or outside the scope of this study
as governed by the research questions. Closely related to the theoretical framework, the methodological
paradigm adopted to gather and analyse data is set out in Chapter 5. The study adopts a mixed-methods
approach, using both quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data over a three-stage research design
which is outlined in Chapter 5, along with the strategies used to recruit participants, ethical considerations,
and the methods for collecting and analysing data, namely via semi-structured interviews with instructor-
participants, a content analysis of the six OLEs, and the administration of the CoI survey instrument to
students in the instructors’ classes.
1.4.2. Pre-intervention and Intervention Stages
Chapters 6 and 7 report, analyse, and discuss the results of the three data sets collected in the first
stage of the study, which I have termed a “survey of practice”. Chapter 8 describes the design, development
and delivery of a professional development intervention delivered in the second stage of the study and
focused on multimodality, and the application of semiotic resources in the OLE to the benefit of increased
CoI presences in instructors’ OLEs. The professional development intervention is an opportunity for me to
apply my conceptualisation of the CoI-social semiotic theoretical framework, and to implement an
intervention that meets the needs of the instructor-participants informed by the data gathered in the pre-
12
intervention stage. Chapter 8 also reports the results of the CoI survey that I administered to instructor-
participants at the conclusion of the professional development intervention and reveals the levels of
teaching, social, and cognitive presence I was able to establish in an online learning environment
specifically developed for the intervention.
1.4.3. Post-Intervention Stage
Chapter 9 reports the results of the post-intervention survey of practice, employing the same data
gathering methods as the pre-intervention stage while Chapter 10 compares the results of the pre- and post-
intervention stages of the study in order to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. Finally, Chapter 11
outlines the implications for practice emerging from the study. The implications are discussed in relation
the field of teacher education in TESOL but have potential for application in other fields, especially those
embracing a more proactive approach to OTL in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I outline some of
the limitations present in the study and suggest how these might be addressed in future studies that either
replicate the approach used here or utilise different approaches.
13
Chapter 2 –The Community of Inquiry Framework
In the previous chapter, I provided a description of the study as a whole, discussed the real-world
context in which it takes place, articulated research questions RQ1 and RQ2, and described the rationale
that underpins them. RQ1 and RQ2 respond to a gap in our knowledge about how various semiotic resources
are utilised in online teaching and learning (OTL). It is unclear from the research literature what the
potential is for semiotic resources to indicate and contribute to the establishment of teaching, social, and
cognitive presence in the online learning environment (OLE). Unsurprisingly, because there is a gap in our
knowledge, it is difficult to identify research in the literature that addresses the Community of Inquiry (CoI)
framework and multimodal social semiotics simultaneously. The CoI is the main theoretical framework I
have used in this study, allowing me to examine the practice of instructors engaged in online teaching and
learning. Consequently, I use this chapter to review the relevant literature on the CoI framework Overall,
this chapter provides part of the scholarly context in which this study sits and highlights existing evidence
from the literature that I am utilising in pursuit of answers to my research questions. Chapter 3 takes the
same approach in outlining multimodal social semiotic theory and highlights literature relevant to theory
applied in this study.
2.1 Selecting an Appropriate Framework
The mid- to late 1990s and early 2000s saw the genesis of OTL as we know it today, leading to
increased enrolment in online academic programs (Castellanos-Reyes, 2020). Many full-time students in
these programs were also likely to be engaged in paid employment, described as 'learner-earners'
(Cunningham et al., 2000). Conversely, other students engaged in full-time employment were enrolled part
time in study and could be called ‘earner-learners’ (Cunningham et al., 2000). Regardless of motivation or
employment status, these students were attracted to online learning for the flexibility it afforded them as
they managed both work and study (Stuparich, 2001). This flexibility remains a defining characteristic of
OTL today. In Australia, McInnes et al. (2000) reported an increase of 9% in students both studying full
time and in paid employment for the period 1994 - 1999. This increase in demand for online learning is
attributed to new economies, demand for skills, growing global markets, such as Brazil, Russia, India, and
China (so-called BRICS [/brɪks/] nations) the emergence of professional or practice-based postgraduate
qualifications, and a growing number of practising instructors identifying the affordances and benefits of
OTL (McCann et al., 1998). It was against this backdrop that frameworks and models of OTL were
conceived. Prominent models in the literature that allow us to conceptualise OTL are the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, et al., 2000). In the next
section, I briefly describe and critique the TAM and TPACK models to demonstrate why the CoI was
ultimately selected as the most appropriate framework for this study.
14
2.1.1. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
The TAM (Davis, 1989) comes from the field of information systems theory and is both founded
on a simple premise and one of the most influential models on technology acceptance (Charness & Boot,
2016). The model is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Used to model how users interact with and accept technology,
the TAM allows researchers to identify the behavioural intention that leads people to use a technology
based on two sets of beliefs: (1) The ease of use and (2) the perceived usefulness of the technology. The
more instructors believe a technology will make their jobs easier, the higher the probability they will use it
and accept it as useful (Dillon & Morris, 1996). The model focuses primarily on the perceptions of a
potential user for example instructors. The TAM has primarily found use in educational contexts for
explaining course management system usage and satisfaction with the internet as an educational delivery
medium (Arbaugh, 2000; Arbaugh and Duray, 2002).
Figure 2.1 Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989).
The TAM model makes several assumptions:
• Instructors are willing to use a technology if they perceive it as useful.
• Instructors’ estimations that a technology is “useful” are accurate.
• Users have a choice in the technologies they use in online teaching and learning.
• Willingness and ease of use are synonymous with being “pedagogically sound”.
King and He (2006) attribute the TAM’s wide popularity to the model being simple and easy to
comprehend and apply. While the TAM may be applicable to an individual and their own adoption of
technology, in an institutional context, an instructor’s acceptance of an educational technology is mostly
influenced by what is available and prescribed or imposed. While we might be able to apply the TAM to
individual instructors and find out why they choose to use certain technologies or semiotic resources within
15
an OLE, this doesn’t capture their nuances of function or estimate their potential to support OTL. In an
exploration of the practical applications and use of the TAM in technology-related studies and mixed-
methods and qualitative research, Ajibade (2018) criticises the common assumptions of researchers using
the TAM, and notes:
• Willingness is not an automatic consequence of perceived ease.
• “Usefulness” is a subjective measure.
• In institutional contexts, there are well-established processes and rules concerning the use of
educational technologies (p. 5)
To these, I add the following:
• TAM fails to take into account that instructors often overestimate the pedagogical value of a
technology or ignore assessing its ease of use.
• TAM fails to consider the capability of Instructors who may not take advantage of what is possible
with the technology, especially for addressing individual student needs (e.g., Schoonenboom,
2014).
• TAM doesn’t reflect the impact on students. Instructors overestimate student comfort with
technology and resources (Keengwe et al., 2009).
In sum, the TAM, while being widely used by instructors and researchers and having a significant presence
in the literature, is unsuitable for the present study because of the focus on the instructor at the expense of
considering the importance of technology to students learning online. Moreover, while it provides insight
into instructors’ feelings towards the adoption of tools they use (which might be considered a socio-
emotional aspect of the model), it does so without considering practice beyond ease of use for the instructor.
Therefore, I discounted using TAM as the framework through which I could analyse OLT.
2.1.2. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Another popular framework for examining technology use, pedagogy, and content knowledge in
OTL is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). TPACK
focuses on the “connections among teachers’ understanding of content, pedagogy, and technology, and how
they interact with one a