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 another to produce effective teaching” (Koehler et al., 2013, p. 101). Central to
TPACK is the understanding that constructive OTL needs to emphasise these connections (Willermark,
2018), particularly as the use of educational technology becomes widespread (Voogt et al., 2009).
The TPACK framework illustrated in Figure 2.2 consists of three knowledge areas: content
knowledge (CK) – an instructor’s knowledge of subject content; technology knowledge (TK) – an
instructor’s knowledge of technology used in the design, development, and delivery of a subject, and
pedagogical knowledge (PK) – an instructor’s knowledge of teaching methods. Where these knowledge
areas intersect, more specific knowledges are formed. Technological content knowledge (TCK) speaks to
how instructors use technology specifically in relation to their subject content. Pedagogical content
16
knowledge refers to how instructors operationalise pedagogy. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)
refers to an instructor’s use of technology to communicate and engage with learners. Overall, technological
pedagogical content knowledge is manifest in an instructor’s ability to use technology to facilitate learning
experiences where students both learn content and are given the tools to find resources and think critically.
Figure 2.2 TPACK Framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
Because TPACK provides a framework for describing the set of skills and knowledge for using
technology successfully and effectively (Koehler et al., 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), for example in the
design, development, and delivery of OLT via an OLE, it has informed many professional development
projects (Chai et al., 2013; Voogt et al., 2012).
While the TPACK framework features prominently in the literature (Irwanto, 2021) and offers a
tool for instructors to consider how they foster knowledge building and effective technology use, it does
not incorporate any reference to student engagement. Both TPACK and the TAM are less likely to take into
account the socio-cultural or emotional needs of learners (and instructors) than the CoI framework which
places equal importance on teaching, social and cognitive presence, as we will see below. The TPACK
framework and TAM are also what is referred to, in teacher education in TESOL, as being “Teacher-
centred”, with little explicit discussion of the role of the students in OTL. While there is mention of
instructor interaction with students in the TPK knowledge area, this is still in the form of discourse
17
facilitation and direct instruction (to use the terminology of the CoI framework). In addition, TPACK sees
the OLE less as an environment where learning takes place and more as one of any number of tools for
teaching. While studies examining multimodal literacies have utilised the TPACK model and have called
for the integration of items relating to multimodal literacy in a TPACK survey instrument (e.g., Tan et al.,
2019), none consider either semiotic resources individually or speak to the OLE as a semiotic space where
communication takes place.
Finally, a systematic literature review examining trends in TPACK (Irwanto, 2021) finds that,
between 2010 and 2021, most studies fulfilling the review criteria employ quantitative methods (e.g.,
Rodríguez Moreno et al., 2019; Willermark, 2018; Wu, 2013) more than qualitative, mixed methods, or
non-empirical approaches. With respect to the present study, a mixed-methods approach was deliberately
chosen from the outset (see §5.4) so that any number of complex, malleable and fluid phenomena taking
place in an OLE might better be captured or identified by utilising multiple qualitative and quantitative
tools (Rezaei, 2017). The TPACK framework focuses on instructors’ knowledge in three areas:
technological, pedagogical, and content. However, it doesn’t consider students’ knowledge or how students
might be able to construct knowledge online (beyond anything already part of an instructor’s pedagogical
knowledge). Furthermore, the TPACK framework concentrates on practice only so far as pedagogical
knowledge allows, while the entire endeavour of OTL would be stymied, according to TPACK, if an
instructor’s technological knowledge falls short of what is required to run an online course. In relation to
this study, these shortcomings prevent me from taking a more nuanced examination of OTL, and so I also
rejected TPACK as a framework. While the three frameworks are not equivalent, aiming for slightly
different outcomes and therefore not completely comparable, the TAM, TPACK and CoI frameworks are
often the three approaches cited by academic managers, educational designers and instructors when first
considering undertaking an examination of OTL. However, of the three, the CoI is the one framework that
is able to evaluate OTL against a comprehensive theory of practice. Subsequently, I employ the CoI
framework to conceptualise OTL in this study.
2.1.3. The Community of Inquiry Framework
The CoI is one of the most widely employed frameworks for examining and evaluating online
teaching and learning (Stenbom, 2018; Jan et al., 2019). And, increasingly, as a guide to the design,
development, and delivery of OTL via a learning environment. The CoI is made up of a group of individuals
in a learning context. The group collaborates and uses purposeful discourse to undertake tasks as part of an
educational experience. These tasks promote the co-construction of personal meaning and confirmation of
mutual understanding of the content being taught and of each other. The framework incorporates three
presences: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. The interaction of these presences,
managed and facilitated by a qualified and experienced instructor, will culminate in the delivery of a
worthwhile educational experience that fosters critical thinking and reflection. Early research on the CoI
focused on defining the parameters of each presence. Some 22 years after Garrison et al.’s (2000) seminal
work, the presences not only are well defined, but they have been validated individually and in terms of
18
their relationship to each other. Thus, the inclusion of the CoI in this theoretical framework is justified. In
a systematic review of literature on educational research about e-learning between 2009 and 2018,
Valverde-Berrocoso et al. (2020) described the CoI as the most relevant theory of e-learning (p. 12). This
section offers an historical account of the development of the CoI framework up to the year 2008 and
explain the core tenets of the framework.
Based at the University of Alberta, Canada at the end of the 1990s, researchers Randy Garrison,
Terry Anderson and Walter Archer concluded that asynchronous, computer-mediated learning (i.e., OTL)
affords a unique vector for communication between students and their instructors, rather than preventing it
(Castellanos-Reyes, 2020). Using transcriptions of online discussions, Garrison et al. (2000) identified and
described the “elements that are crucial prerequisites for a successful higher educational experience” (p. 2)
online. The result of this work is the CoI framework, described in their seminal work, “Critical inquiry in
a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education” (Garrison et al., 2000). The CoI is
a tripartite framework encompassing three so-called presences: teaching, social and cognitive presence
illustrated in Figure 2.3 while the definition of each of the three CoI presences, and subcategories are listed
in Table 2.0.
Figure 2.3 The (Simplified) Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000).
19
Table 2.1 Definitions of Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence.
Presence Definition Subcategory Definition
Teaching Presence
“…the ‘things that
teachers do’.”
(Lumsden, 2018, p.
28)
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 and
providing direct, subject-
specific direction.
Design & Organisation
Setting Curriculum, planning how tasks will unfold in lessons, establishing
time parameters, utilising the medium effectively, managing and
communicating expectations of civility.
Discourse Facilitation
Identifying dis/agreement, identifying consensus, encouraging, and
acknowledging learner contributions, setting the climate for learning, drawing
participants into discussion, assessing the efficacy of the process.
Direct Instruction
Presenting content, asking questions, summarising discussion, confirming
understanding. Diagnosing misconceptions, injecting knowledge, and
personal experience, and dealing with technical issues.
Social Presence
The extent to which
someone in the
community of
inquiry can project
themselves as a
“real person”
Social presence is the
ability of all participants in
the learning community
(subject) to share their
beliefs, feelings, and
personality both online and
off, to establish trust and
build relationships with
each other.
Open Communication
Sustained, interactive communication characterised by participants’ active
contributions to message threads and other similar tasks, continuing threads
by quoting others, asking questions, complimenting, and expressing
agreement.
Affective
Communication
The conventional (and unconventional) expression of emotion in the OLE,
usually via discussion boards and other similar tasks.
Group Cohesion
Where there is a sense of group identity, where members of the community of
inquiry use vocatives and/or phatics to refer to the group and address people
by name and use inclusive pronouns3.
3 What Garrison et al. (2000) and later Garrison and Akyol (2003) referred to as inclusive pronouns are in fact 1st person plural pronouns, for example “we” and “our”. This shouldn’t be confused
with the use of gender inclusive pronouns or the use of inclusive to mean neutral when thinking about using gender neutral pronouns in writing.
20
Presence Definition Subcategory Definition
Cognitive
Presence
Cognitive presence,
characterised by the
Practical Inquiry
Model (Garrison et
al., 2000), is
summarised in
Figure 2.4
Cognitive presence
provides learners with
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 include
reflection
Triggering Event
This is where a question is posed, or a problem identified, that arises out of
the content of the course or emerges from experience. In an educational
context these questions are often posed, or problems orchestrated, through the
management of discourse by the instructor, i.e., teaching presence (Garrison
et al., 2001). Any member of the community of inquiry can explicitly or
implicitly contribute a triggering event to the discourse
Exploration
Learners identify the nature of the question or problem before them shifting
between internalised, private reflection, and external, social collaboration
requiring discourse. Subsequently, learners begin to be selective about the
information they are gathering and begin to evaluate its relevance to the
question or problem (Garrison et al., 2000).
Integration
Learners construct meaning based on the information and ideas to emerge
from the exploration phase. The selectivity seen in the exploration phase
shifts to learners making judgements about the applicability of the
information gathered and whether it is possible to connect this information to
the question or problem in the service of finding an answer or a solution.
Resolution
Learners confirm and implement an answer to the question or problem
uncovered by the triggering event, progression to this fourth phase relies on
the instructor setting clear expectations and providing students with the
opportunity to apply newly created knowledge (Garrison et al., 2001).
The resolution phase, and the application of knowledge, may lead to the
discovery of new problems and new triggering events, and so the process
begins again.
21
Figure 2.4 The Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison et al., 2000)
22
These interdependent presences allow us to describe the learning processes taking place in an instance of
OTL. The culmination of the three presences is the creation of a deep and meaningful learning experience
based on the work of a group of learners and their instructors working collaboratively, engaging in
meaningful critical discourse, constructing personal and group meaning, and where mutual understanding
is confirmed continuously (Garrison et al., 2000). Each subcategory is characterised by a set of instructor
actions identified by an indicator. These indicators have been used to develop schema for coding of
transcripts taken from OLEs (e.g., Garrison et al., 2000). Indicators of teaching presence, based on those
reported by Rourke et al. (2001), Shea et al. (2010) and Swan and Shih (2005), used in this study can be
found in Appendix B.
The development of the CoI framework is rooted in the same kind of social constructivism with
which many TESOL instructors and English teachers would be familiar. This is the social constructivism
advanced by Dewey (e.g., 1969) and Vygotsky (1983/1987). Teaching and learning are complex social
processes involving interaction between teacher (TESOL Instructor) and student (pre- and in-service
teacher). Vygotsky’s suggestion that a teacher provides the social environment in which students can work
together to solve problems echoed in the concepts of social presence (group cohesion) and cognitive
presence (exploration) in the CoI framework. Similarly, establishing an environment in which students
interact with each other and the teacher to solve problems can be seen in task-based approaches taught in
TESOL. In teacher education in TESOL, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development often forms the basis
of how scaffolding is taught to pre- and in-service teachers (e.g., Qin, 2022; Li et al., 2022).
Dewey’s notion of learning as a series of social experiences not only underpins the CoI, with an
educational experience described as the culmination of teaching, social and cognitive presence by Garrison
et al. (2000), it also provides impetus in TESOL for including experiences in teaching using authentic texts
and materials. Moreover, Dewey’s emphasis on reflection as a practice and as an important part of the
process of constructing knowledge (Rozells, 2019; Farrell, 2019b), for both teachers and students, aligns
with Farrell and Richards’ (2005) and Farrell’s (2019) description of what is (or perhaps should be) taught
in teacher education in TESOL programs. Dewey’s influence extends to online learning design, where
experiences are best created through collaborative, interactive tasks, and discussions where learners have
the opportunity to use authentic language. This approach forms the “pedagogical cornerstone for interactive
discussions that replaces straight lecturing, whether in a face-to-face or online class” (Picciano, 2017).
Criticism of the CoI framework often focuses on how it treats online communication – an area of
significant interest and relevance to this study. Specifically, the CoI framework treats language in general
terms rather than distinguishing between linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic resources, categorising these
latter resources arbitrarily by their impact on teaching, social and cognitive aspects of OTL. However,
online communication can fulfil multiple functions:
23
[T]he functions of online utterances are useful for understanding the complexity of phenomena;
however, they do not always correspond to neat distinctions in reality […] all three aspects are
performed simultaneously in a single communicative act, e.g., a sentence or paragraph, their precise
function depending on what was said previously leading up to that point, the contexts, and the
dynamics of the discussion.
(Xin, 2012, p. 4)
According to Xin, by categorising communicative acts according to their teaching, social or cognitive
aspects, the CoI ignores the fact that communication serves more than one purpose simultaneously.
Furthermore, the CoI does not consider the context surrounding communicative acts. Practically speaking,
a communicative act in a classroom or OLE can fulfill numerous functions simultaneously and therefore
indicate multiple presences simultaneously. In the TESOL context, for example, an instructor may say
something where the primary function is to communicate content yet say it in such a way as to elicit
responses from students as a secondary function. This is precisely why the present study seeks to expand
upon the CoI framework to include non-linguistic semiotic resources in the OLE, as indicators of presence
and to reveal their multiple communicative functions. The interpretation of communicative acts in the OLE
must incorporate the categorisation, enumeration, and identification of non-linguistic semiotic resources.
Multiple categories may be arbitrary but acknowledge the multilayered and dynamic nature of
communication taking place online.
In the following section, I highlight research on the CoI framework that has helped to define not
only the framework but also the individual constructs of teaching, social and cognitive presence, and how
these might be applied to better understand (and eventually plan for) OTL. Table 2.1 lists some of the
significant early contributions to the literature that sought to define the CoI as a whole and to define and
measure teaching, social and cognitive presence.
Table 2.2 Significant Early Contributions to Defining the Community of Inquiry Framework
Authors
Title
Focus
Year
Rourke, Anderson,
Garrison & Archer
Assessing social presence in
asynchronous text-based computer
conferencing
Social presence
1999
Garrison, Anderson &
Archer
Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: computer conferencing in
higher education
Community of
Inquiry
Framework
2000
Anderson, Rourke,
Garrison & Archer
Assessing teaching presence in a
computer conferencing context
Measuring
teaching presence
2001
Garrison, Anderson &
Archer
Critical thinking, cognitive presence,
and computer conferencing in distance
education
Measuring
cognitive
presence
2001
24
2.2. Using the CoI Framework
One of the reasons for using the CoI in this study is its widespread use in both English and non-
English speaking contexts. For example, the literature contains examples of studies originally reported in
languages other than English for example, Jézégou (2010). In a candid, critical analysis of the CoI, Jézégou
(2010) suggests that Garrison et al. (2000) “do not sufficiently elaborate on the epistemological bases of
the model […] explanation of these bases would allow for clearer identification of the model’s potential
for research on e-learning” (p. 3). Jézégou wrote from a position within the Francosphere, pointing out a
key issue with the CoI, namely that the concept of a community of inquiry was little known within France
and that translations4 fail to convey the various shades of meaning linked to the term: “…shades of meaning
that Garrison and Anderson (2003) do not sufficiently develop in the presentation of their model” (2010, p.
4). Jézégou’s description of North American pragmatism, constructivism, and transactional perspectives
(Dewey 1946; Dewey & Bently, 1976) and their influence on the development of the CoI model are a
truism, having been described in the initial defining papers (Rourke et al., 1999; Garrison et al., 2000;
Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 2001) as well as the majority of theoretical papers and studies written
since then. The potential for something being lost in translation when reading Jézégou is possible, but we
have seen that there are numerous examples of the CoI framework being operationalised in other non-
English speaking contexts (cf. Table 2.4). Nevertheless, Jézégou (2010) provides us with arguably the most
accessible description of a community of inquiry:
[A] group of people, who are voluntary members with various expertise of equal value,
who are jointly involved in a problem-solving process based on the general principles of
the scientific method and in a collaborative learning process; these combined processes
facilitate the individual and collective construction of knowledge’.
(p. 5)
Jézégou provides us with a mostly plain-language description of the CoI. While students’
motivations may differ, in the context of this study students join the different communities of inquiry by
virtue of choosing to undertake post-graduate education. It may seem idealistic to ascribe equal value to
the expertise students bring to a community of inquiry, but in the case of this study it is true to some extent
given that students are often in-service teachers, some with considerable classroom experience, who have
chosen to complete a graduate certificate-level course in English language teaching. The description is also
useful because it highlights the social constructivist underpinnings of the CoI when discussing the
“scientific method”. The term "scientific method" is used advisedly in the specific sense attributed by
Dewey when he noted: “Scientific method or the art of constructing true perceptions is ascertained in the
course of experience” (1925 p. 379). The scientific method is shorthand for what Garrison et al. (2000) and
Garrison (2017) refer to as the critical thinking occurring during the exploration stage of the PIM, where
students have to evaluate and assess the information they find (or in the case of language learning, evaluate
the efficacy of their and other interlocutors’ utterances for example).
4 Translated variously as “communauté de recherché” (Agnostini, 2007) and “communauté d’enquête” (Manca et al, 2006).
25
Overall, Jézégou’s (2010) description of the CoI used in Chapter 2 is an appropriate one because it
explains the CoI in plain-language making it accessible to the reader. However, Jézégou’s definition
remains consistent with representations and definitions of the CoI historically reported in the literature (e.g.,
Arbaugh 2008; 2013; Arbaugh et al., 2008; Garrison et al., 2000) and with more recent works (e.g., Abbitt
& Boone, 2021; Garrison, 2017; Shin, 2016; Thymniou & Tsitouridou, 2021).
2.2.1. Teaching Presence
Teaching presence is the facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes “for the
purpose of realising personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning” (Anderson et al., 2001,
p. 5). 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 in a classroom or in the OLE. Importantly,
teaching presence is a condition for establishing social and cognitive presence. Drawing on their own
experiences of teaching at postgraduate level and contemporaneous literature (e.g., Paulsen, 1995; Berge,
1995; and Mason, 1991), Anderson et al. (2001) defined the numerous roles of the online instructor in terms
of the CoI framework (2001). Initial studies utilised excerpts from OLEs of postgraduate health and
education subjects (e.g., Garrison et al., 2000; Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 2001) using coding
schemes that would go on to form the indicators of teaching presence.
In developing the construct of teaching presence, Anderson et al. (2001) recognised that OTL
(based on written language) is influenced by the absence of face-to-face conventions and paralinguistic
information. In addition, many individual variables are likely to contribute to, or detract from establishing
teaching presence in an OLE. These include individual instructor style, discipline, class size, and student
and instructor familiarity with the medium. In addition, the CoI (and, in particular, teaching presence) has
become a useful framework for the planning and creation of subjects delivered online as well as their
evaluation at the conclusion of delivery. Parallel to design and evaluation, the indicators of teaching
presence have also formed the basis for useful self-reflection and diagnosis tools for instructors who want
to analyse their own “teaching presence”, identify patterns in their practice, and share the results with other
instructors in communities of practice.
When originally conceived, the CoI relied on content analysis of excerpts taken from an OLE.
These excerpts included posts from discussion boards and other artefacts made up exclusively of written
language. As a result, the indicators of teaching presence rely on revealing teacher action manifest in written
language, or possibly in what an instructor says (spoken language) in a synchronous, videoconference
lesson, for example. However, the OLE has become considerably more semiotically diverse in the 22 years
following Garrison et al.’s (2000) foundational research. Improved computing power and faster networking
allows a significant measure of information, knowledge, and content to be communicated by both
instructors and students within the OLE utilising non-linguistic semiotic resources.
The amount of instructor effort in the preparation, design, organisation, and maintenance of the
OLE is enormous. Neglecting the communicative or meaning-making affordances depicted in the use of
26
different non-linguistic semiotic resources marginalises the work of instructors, reinforces the monopoly
that written and spoken language have in the OLE for communicating meaning, and risks obscuring
instructors’ values and beliefs about language learning, pedagogy and knowledge which are also reflected
in the use of non-linguistic semiotic resources (e.g., Kress et al., 2005).
Researchers have encountered challenges when attempting to statistically distinguish between the
subcategories of teaching presence. In the literature, criticism centres on the mixed results from
examinations of teaching presence using confirmatory factor analysis (e.g., Bush et al., 2010; Miller et al.,
2014; Shea et al., 2005; Shea et al., 2006; Swan et al., 2008). The application of Factor Analysis found that
the facilitating discourse and direct instruction sub-categories (both teaching presence) both resolve into
one factor which Shea (2006) describes as “direct facilitation”. Other studies show that the design and
organisation, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction are three distinct sub-categories (Arbaugh &
Hwang, 2006). Failure to control for factors and for the participant type have been offered as reasons for
these divergent results (Garrison, 2007).
Teaching presence has also been criticised for not capturing the complexities involved in the shift
in formal education toward many-to-many online communication contexts and educational experiences.
The idea that an OLE requires a “[h]uman teacher […] to oversee and shepherd a rather limited number of
learners” (Annand, 2019, p. 11) is characterised as outdated by critics such as Annand who are also critical
of the paced, cohort-based learning that is still the norm in higher education (2019, p. 10). Massive open
online courses (MOOCs) provide an educational experience online without a limit on the number of learners
enrolled (except for technological limits) and provide the same content to learners regardless of where in
the world they are. It thus appears that MOOCs are an example of the scalable and many-to-many
collaboration that Annand (ibid.) calls for. Moreover, MOOCs have been the subject of considerable
research in the CoI literature. Table 2.10 describes studies examining MOOCs utilising the CoI framework.
Table 2.3 Select Studies Using the Community of Inquiry to Examine MOOCs
Author(s)
Title
Focus
Year
Damm
Applying a community of inquiry
instrument to measure student
engagement in large online courses
CoI survey instrument
administered to MOOC
learners
2016
Amemdo & Manca
Learning from decades of online
distance education: MOOCs and the
Community of Inquiry Framework
Integrating the CoI into
MOOC design
2017
Kaul, Aksela & Wu
Dynamics of the community of
inquiry (CoI) within a massive open
online course (MOOC) for in-service
teachers in environmental education
CoI presences in in-service
teacher education MOOCs
2018
Cohen & Holstein
Analysing successful massive open
online courses using the community
of inquiry model as perceived by
students
Data mining, semantic,
and content analysis of
MOOCs for indicators of
presences
2018
27
Author(s)
Title
Focus
Year
Thymniou &
Tsitouridou
Community of Inquiry Model in
Online Learning: Development
Approach in MOOCs
The CoI and the role of the
teacher in MOOCs
2021
2.2.2. Social Presence
The concept of social presence predates the community of inquiry and can be traced back to notions
like immediacy, the use of nonverbal interaction and closeness (Mehrbian, 1969, p. 203) afforded by face-
to-face contexts. The coining of the term “social presence” is attributed to communication theorists, Short,
Williams and Christie (1976, p. 65). Social presence is the ability of all participants in the learning
community (variously described as the subject, unit, or course) to share their beliefs, feelings, and
personality both online and off, to establish trust and build relationships with each other. The examination
of social presence in Rourke et al. (1999) is important for several reasons. Firstly, it provides a brief
historical summary of the development of social presence as a construct, drawing on Short et al. (1976)
who suggested that media such as fax machines, voice mail and audioconferencing are unable to transmit
non-verbal cues (Short et al., 1976). Rourke et al. (1999) also point to Daft and Lengel’s (1986) assertion
that nonverbal communicative acts also have the potential to be lean, that is, to be simple, unequivocal, and
efficient, but without any emphatic or emotional dimensions. Social presence was defined by them as the
ability of learners (and instructors) to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community of
inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999, p. 52).
One of the defining characteristics of social presence in the CoI is the expression of emotion,
feelings, and mood (Garrison et al., 2000). Earlier views of OTL suggested that the absence of embodied
communicative resources such as gesture and facial expressions, and social norms such as eye contact and
turn-taking, reduced social-emotional communication online (e.g., Walther, 1996). The CoI rejects the
notion that social-emotional communication is dulled when mediated by a computer. Instead, Rourke et al.
(1999) noted that emotion, referred to as affect, can be expressed in online communication in numerous
ways. Examples include the use of emoticons (e.g., Falman, 1981; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Kuehn,
1993) and, more recently, emoji, capitalisation, personal references, self-disclosure, and the use of humour
have also been acknowledged. Yet, it is only emoji and capitalisation that has received attention in the CoI
literature, and linguistic resources feature most prominently in descriptions of the indicators of social
presence.
In practice, affective communication relates to how members of a community of inquiry get to
know about each other. The more students know about each other, the more trustful and responsive they
become in terms of producing academic discourse (Garrison, 2017) – a key consideration for English
teaching and teacher education in TESOL. Affective communication is also necessary for open
communication to occur. Open communication in Rourke et al. (1999) is partly derived from Eggins and
Slade (1997) who identified responses and rejoinders as being important to conversation. Responses and
rejoinders help to build and sustain relationships (Rourke et al., 1999). Thus, recognition of other members’
28
contributions, compliments, willingness to ask and encourage answers to questions are indicators of open
communication. When members of a community of inquiry express agreement and examine the content of
messages, either individually or as a group, they engage in discourse and critical thinking (Garrison, 2017)
- indicators of teaching and cognitive presence. Thus, illustrating the interdependence of the three presences.
The third subcategory, group cohesion relies on trust, discourse, and reflection. Group cohesion is
the force that helps sustain the commitment and focus of members in a community of inquiry (Garrison,
2017). Meaning-making and the construction of knowledge can only be successful where cohesion exists,
i.e., when learners perceive themselves as belonging to the “group”. The indicators of social presence, based
on those reported by Rourke et al. (2001), Shea et al. (2010) and Swan and Shih (2005), used in this study
can be found in Appendix B.
The subcategories of social presence, open communication, affective communication, and group
cohesion have attracted criticism for equating action with outcome (Xin, 2012, p. 7). For example, using a
“☺” emoji in a discussion forum post is a communicative action and has the potential to be affective
(displaying or eliciting emotion). Open communication and group cohesion, by contrast, are examples of
positive effects, the result of other actions, not actions themselves. However, Xin (2012) doesn’t allow for
the planning of open communication and group cohesion by an instructor in the design and development
of the OLE – making them actions albeit related to teaching presence. In an English lesson, for example,
an instructor may start a lesson by eliciting not only what students know but also their experiences
connected to that knowledge – lifting the so-called affective barrier (Krashen, 1984). Eliciting is an action
and could manifest in an OLE via a discussion forum just as it would in a face-to-face classroom or even
in a MOOC. Again, this demonstrates the interdependence of teaching presence and social presence.
Criticism of social presence as a construct often comes from the perspective of distance education
rather than OTL. Distance learning often values learner autonomy more than purposeful and collaborative
discourse that drives a community of inquiry (Garrison, 2009, 2011, 2017). The ability to create dialogic5
communication in OLEs is questioned by Annand (2011). If Annand’s doubts are valid, it also calls into
question the impact of social presence on establishing cognitive presence (2011, p. 40). However, a strong
relationship between social and cognitive presence is demonstrated by Rolima et al. (2019) which used
epistemic network analysis (ENA) to successfully identify connections between social and cognitive
presence and describe how these connections change over time. Specifically, open communication, the
interactive communication taking place in messages and discussion forums, impacts the triggering event
and exploration stages of the practical inquiry model. Affective communication, the expression of emotion,
has a strong link to the integration and resolution stages, notably the two stages of the practical inquiry
model that have traditionally been considered difficult to measure (Garrison, 2017).
5 Dialogic communication is particularly important in teacher education in TESOL, where instructors will model interactive
dialogues and the kinds of eliciting techniques that students will inevitably use in their own classrooms, while attempting to break
bad habits such as echoing student utterances, asking closed questions, and using Initiation, Response, Evaluation (IRE) exchanges.
29
2.2.3. Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence, the “extent to which learners can construct and confirm meaning through
sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry “(Garrison et al. 2001, p. 11) reflects
the assumption that critical thinking is at the core of a worthwhile educational experience (Garrison et al.,
2001; Castellanos-Reyes, 2020). Cognitive presence is evident when learners construct meaning through
individual, pair/peer, and small and large group work in online and offline modes of delivery. In the OLE
these opportunities are usually active (and interactive), collaborative and reflexive tasks promoting and
requiring higher-order thinking. Cognitive presence embraces social constructivism (e.g., Dewey, 1933,
1958; Vygotsky, 1983/1987). Garrison et al. (2000) synthesised these ideas into descriptions of critical
thinking and operationalised these in the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM). The integration and resolution
stages of the practical inquiry model (PIM) have been the subject of criticism, because of the difficulty that
exists in observing students in these stages engaging in higher order thinking (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009).
This also means that there are far fewer studies in the literature that address cognitive presence exclusively.
Rourke and Kanuka (2009) list eight between 2000 and 2007, and Stenbom (2018) lists two between 2008
and 2018. By way of further example, between 2019 and 2021 just three studies can be found in SCOPUS
using the search terms “Cognitive presence” AND “Community of Inquiry”, despite an increase in CoI
research due to an increased focus on OTL during the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous studies (e.g.,
Garrison et al., 2001; McKlin et al., 2001; Fahy et al., 2002; Schrire, 2004; Vaughn et al., 2005; Kanuka et
al., 2007; Stein et al., 2007) have utilised content analysis to classify students’ contributions to online
discussion forums and posts, finding that the majority contain indicators of exploration in the PIM (41-
61%). A much smaller number include indicators of integration (13-33%), and a small percentage (1 – 9%)
contain indicators of resolution (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009). However, it is possible that, in the TESOL
context, integration (if not resolution) is able to be observed to a greater extent than in some other
disciplines. This is due to one of the mainstays of many TESOL programs, a practical component requiring
students to teach what is variously referred to as a “demo lesson”, “practicum” or similar.
These lessons, taught by students, usually form part of the assessment requirements of such
programs and are observed by one or more instructors. Programs that are particularly stringent like those
offered by the institutions that employ the instructors in this study, will have several practicum
opportunities for students. Instructors are able to view the integration of the ideas and concepts being taught
in the program as manifest in the students’ teaching. As to resolution, it is possible that resolution doesn’t
occur in the classroom or the OLE. Perhaps the true resolution stage happens beyond the view of the
instructor. That is certainly the hope of an English language teacher, for example, a language learner will
find resolution in a communicative act, in an authentic context, utilising their lexical resources and
metacognitive awareness learned in class. To date, there is very little in the literature that addresses
integration and resolution. Additionally, there is nothing that confirms my suggestion that resolution might
only be observed outside of the classroom.
30
The examples from the literature described thus far examined the interplay of two presences at a
time. By contrast, the present study is concerned with how semiotic resources increase the prevalence of
all three presences in the OLE simultaneously. This approach is uncommon. In a review of the CoI literature
between 2000 and 2008, Rourke and Kanuka (2009) found that just 13 studies focused on all three presences,
out of the 57 included in their review. Instead, researchers have usually concentrated on establishing a
relationship between two presences or between presences and other constructs such as student satisfaction,
learning outcomes, perceptions of learning, and instructor satisfaction (e.g., Lumsden, 2018).
The CoI, as a framework, has benefitted from consistent reappraisal and refinement throughout the
period 2000 – 2008. Following the foundational work of Garrison et al. (2000) and the early work on
teaching, social and cognitive presence individually (Table 2.1), the focus of attention in the literature
shifted to the potential theoretical connections and the interdependence of the three presences. For example,
Kanuka, et al. (2007) demonstrate how task selection (teaching presence – design & organisation) is likely
to have an impact on the kinds of posts students make in online discussion (social presence). In other words,
teaching presence, and specifically, design and organisation, influences social presence, specifically open
communication. Collaborative learning such as that which takes place in the exploration stage of the PIM
(cognitive presence) has an influence on the development of social presence in a community of inquiry
(Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rovai, 2002). Social presence is predicated on teaching presence, which is to
say that instructors need to manage and facilitate discourse to make it open, to allow for affective
communication to take place and to build cohesion (Shea et al., 2006; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). instructor.
Figure 2.5a The Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000)
31
Figure 2.5b Contemporary Visualisation of The Community of Inquiry Framework
In Figures 2.5a and 2.5b, below, the interrelationship between the presences is shown as an overlap,
in what has become the traditional representation of the CoI framework in the literature (e.g., Garrison et
al., 2000). I will take the opportunity here to present my own representation of the neat alignment of the
three presences in the CoI framework in Figure 2.5a. The symmetry seen in Figure 2.5a conceals the central
role of teaching presence – especially design and organisation – in establishing social and cognitive
presence (Shea et al., 2010; Garrison et al., 2010). The version of the CoI framework depicted in Figure
2.5b shows a much greater overlap indicating greater interdependence between the presences and the
influence of teaching presence on social and cognitive presence. Teaching presence is undoubtedly the
foundation of the CoI framework and is critical to establishing social and cognitive presence. In
professional development settings, the traditional representation is appropriate for introducing the CoI and
connected concepts. However, the second version might be used to illustrate what the framework looks like
when operationalised.
2.4. 2008: The Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
Until 2008, research on the CoI utilised data gathered primarily from content analyses of written
language-based excerpts or “transcripts” (Garrison et al. 2000) from the OLE. As early as 2006, Garrison
et al. (2006) questioned the validity and reliability of text-based transcripts and provided researchers with
guidance on the development of coding schemes by taking a negotiated approach to coding:
Coding schemes must be both effective from a reliability perspective and efficient from a resource
perspective. A relatively straightforward coding scheme can be of great assistance in the training
of coders and the consistent application of the protocol. The categories must be meaningful,
indicators must be relatively discernible (i.e., explicit), and message units manageable, if coding is
to have reliability.
(p. 2).
32
CoI research up to that point could be described as utilising an “exploratory qualitative approach” and as
being both “descriptive” and “interpretivist” (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 165), because of the reliance
of researchers on language-based transcripts.
Developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) and reported in the foundational study, “Developing a
community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-
institutional sample”, the CoI survey instrument consists of 34 items reflecting the different subcategories
of each of the presences. The development of the CoI survey was a direct response to there being no valid
and reliable measure to test the CoI framework, thus limiting its influence on OTL (Garrison et al., 2008,
p.133). Respondents to the survey indicate their level of agreement for each item on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In the validation study by Arbaugh et al. (2008) a total of
287 students6 were surveyed across four institutions in Canada and the United States (representing a
response rate of 43%). Students were enrolled in graduate-level education and business courses. In
presenting the results, Arbaugh et al. describe the highest and lowest mean scores for the individual items,
the highest and lowest standard deviations among the items, and the collective means and standard
deviations for teaching, social and cognitive presence (2008, p. 134). The development of a Community of
Inquiry instrument marks a turning point in how researchers gather data on the CoI.
The development of a survey instrument created a second dimension for the study of the CoI
framework. In addition to transcripts that can be analysed qualitatively, researchers can use the survey
instrument to elicit quantitative data and measure levels of presence based on responses from students. To
establish reliability and validity, Arbaugh et al. (2008) used the Keyser–Meyer–Olkin measure to establish
whether the results of the survey are suited to factor analysis. This yielded a sampling adequacy of 0.96,
while values for individual items ranged from 0.921 – 0.983. Factor analysis output was predicted and
subsequently proved to be both distinct and reliable. Then, using Cronbach’s Alpha, Arbaugh et al. found
internal consistency for items 1 – 13 (teaching presence) equal to 0.94, for items 14 – 22 (social presence)
equal to 0.91, and for items 23 – 34 (cognitive presence) equal to 0.95. This shows that the items in each
group are closely related (2008, p. 135). Finally, a principal components analysis (PCA) was performed
and was found to support the construct validity of teaching, social and cognitive presences. This led
Arbaugh et al. to conclude that the CoI survey instrument was a valid measure of teaching, social and
cognitive presence (2008, p. 135).
Subsequently, Swan et al. (2008) utilised factor analysis to establish validity and reliability, finding
that the survey instrument consists of “validated items that operationalise the concepts of the CoI
model…[and] may be used for continued explication of concepts in the model" (p. 10). Further work
validating the survey is reported by Diaz et al. (2010) who asked respondents to rate the importance of each
of the 34 items in addition to their agreement. Their results indicate that students perceived teaching
6 Arbaugh et al. (2008) note that the sample size is reasonable and cite Tinsley and Kass (1979) who recommend five to 10
participants per survey item. However, they concede that the sample size is at odds with other rules-of-thumb on sample size, e.g.,
Nunnally (1978) – 10 or more respondents per item, and Tabachnik and Fidell (2007) – minimum sample size n=300.
33
presence to be the most important presence in OTL, followed by cognitive presence and, finally, social
presence. Like Arbaugh et al. (2008) and Swan et al. (2008), Diaz et al. (2010) report that the results of a
principal components analysis suggest that teaching presence can be split into pre-course (design and
organisation) activities and in-course (discourse facilitation and direct instruction) activities. This is
consistent with findings by Arbaugh (2007) and Shea et al. (2006). The split in factor loadings observed in
the analysis likely reflects the time orientation of when these occur (Diaz et al. 2010, p. 18). Table 2.3
outlines key studies leading up to and following the development of the CoI survey instrument by Arbaugh
et al. (2008). These start with Garrison et al. (2006) who questioned whether qualitative, text-based content
analysis is sufficient for examining OTL, and end with studies that examined the construct validity of the
presences (Swan et al., 2008) and replicated earlier work (Diaz et al., 2010).
Studies seeking to validate the CoI survey instrument continue to be conducted, and in languages other than
English. Table 2.4 lists validation studies in non-English contexts that show the instrument to be valid and
reliable. In a systematic review of the use of the CoI survey instrument,
Table 2.4 CoI Studies on Validation of the CoI Survey Instrument
Author(s)
Title
Focus
Year
Methodology studies leading up to
development of CoI survey instrument
Garrison, Cleveland-
Innes, Koole, and
Kappelman
Revisiting methodological
issues in transcript analysis:
Negotiated coding and
reliability
Methodology
2006
Shea, Fredericksen,
Pickett & Pelz
A study of teaching presence
and student sense of learning
community in fully online
and web-enhanced college
courses
Teaching presence
2006
Arbaugh
An empirical verification of
the community of inquiry
framework
Teaching, social, and
cognitive presence
2007
Garrison & Arbaugh
Researching the community
of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future
directions
Methodology
2007
Arbaugh, Cleveland-
Innes, Diaz,
Garrison, Ice,
Richardson, & Swan
Developing a community of
inquiry instrument: Testing a
measure of the Community
of Inquiry framework using a
multi-institutional sample
Teaching, social, and
cognitive presence,
Methodology/validation
2008
Studies focused on
validation of survey
instrument.
Swan, Shea,
Richardson, Ice,
Garrison, Cleveland-
Innes, Arbaugh
Validating a Measurement
Tool of Presence in Online
Communities of Inquiry
Methodology/validation
2008
Díaz, Swan, Ice, &
Kupczynski
Student ratings of the
importance of survey items,
multiplicative factor
analysis, and the validity of
the community of inquiry
survey.
Methodology/validation
2010
Stenbom (2018) found that the number of studies reporting on the use of the instrument steadily increased
between 2008 and 2017 (pp. 24 – 25). Figure 2.5 shows the increase in the number of studies reported in
34
the literature from four in 2008 to 20 in 2017. The United States, at 55 studies, comprises the largest national
context in which the survey instrument has been used. This is followed by Canada (seven)7. Twelve studies
were conducted in Turkey, Malaysia, and Greece (four each). Three studies using the instrument were
conducted in China, The Republic of (South) Korea and Taiwan8 (three each). Countries where two studies
have been conducted are Cyprus, Belgium, and Sweden. Finally, Australia9, Japan, Mexico, Morocco,
Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, and Spain account for one study each.
Table 2.5 Studies Validating the CoI Survey Instrument in Non-English Contexts
Author(s)
Title
Language
Year
Moreira, Ferreira &
Almeida
Comparing communities of inquiry
of Portuguese higher education
students: One for all or one for
each?
Portuguese
2013
Yu & Richardson
Examining reliability and validity
of a Korean version of the
community of inquiry instrument
using exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis
Korean
2015
Ma, Wang, J., Wang,
Q., Kong, Wu & Yang
Verifying causal relationships
among the presences of the
community of inquiry framework in
the Chinese context
Mandarin
2017
Olpak & Cakmak
Examining the reliability and
validity of a Turkish version of the
Community of Inquiry Survey
Turkish
2018
Velázquez, Gil-Jaurena
& Encina
Validation of the Spanish version of
the ‘Community of Inquiry’ survey
Spanish
2019
More recently, Caskurlu (2018) reports on using the CoI Survey instrument in determining the
construct validity of the individual subcategories of each of the presences, drawing on the responses of 310
participants across 12 graduate courses delivered online. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the results
“empirically supported the conceptualization of all three presences as initially proposed by the CoI
framework … as well as the reliability and validity of the CoI instrument” (p. 9). Finally, Abbitt and Boone
(2021) present the results of the survey being administered to 704 students enrolled in a blended graduate-
level program and evaluate the instrument using Rasch psychometric techniques. In reference to the survey
instrument, Garrison (2017) notes it has made…
…a significant enhancement and proliferation of CoI research through more efficient data analysis
and by making possible large-scale studies across institutions, disciplines, demographic groups and
technologies.
(p. 165)
7 Stenbom identifies a further four studies that were conducted in both the US and Canada (2018, p. 24).
8 Another study is identified that gathers data from Taiwan, Canada, New Zealand, and Italy (Stenbom, 2018, p. 24.).
9 The present study would account for both Australia and Korea increasing the number for both countries. At the time of writing, I
am unaware of any other studies underway or in press in either Australia or Korea.
35
In addition, studies such as those carried out by Caskurlu (2018) and Abbitt and Boone (2021) are
significant in that they “provide powerful evidence in support of the validity and conceptualization [sic] of
the CoI framework and its corresponding survey questionnaire” (Garrison, 2018, para 6).
Figure 2.6 Community of Inquiry Survey Studies Published 2008 – 2017 (Stenbom, 2018)
2.5. 2008 – 2017
As a result of the publication and continued validation of the survey instrument, the CoI provides instructors,
educational developers, and technologists with a lens through which OTL can be both designed and
evaluated. As we saw above in Figure 2.6, the number of studies examining the CoI model continued to
increase between 2008 and 2017. These studies reflect a considerable number of disciplines and fields as
well as contexts and participants. This also means that there is a variety of reasons that researchers decided
to employ the CoI survey, which elements of the framework were examined, and the statistical methods
used to examine the data. Drawing on Stenbom (2018), in Table 2.5 I have summarised the diversity of
studies in the period 2008 – 2017 and noted studies that reported characteristics relevant for the present
study in bold. These include studies like the present one that have made additions or modifications to the
CoI survey instrument and studies that draw on data gathered using methods ither than or in addition to the
survey instrument.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 201 4 2015 2016 201 7
Number of Publications
36
Table 2.6 Summary of CoI Studies 2008 - 2017 (Stenbom, 2018)
Component
Number & type of Studies
Discipline focus
Multiple disciplines (34)
Online Teaching & Learning (22)
Education (12)
Languages and Literature (10)
Business (8)
Medicine & Health Sciences (6)
Computer Sciences (4)
Sociology (2)
Engineering, History, Research Methods (1 each)
Unreported (2)
Level
Postgraduate (35)
Undergraduate (25)
Undergraduate and postgraduate mixed (23)
Post-secondary but not stated (15)
Professional development (3)
K-12 (2)
Rationale
(While most focused on one,
some were built on multiple
rationales)
Examination of a single online learning environment
Observing differences using the CoI survey
Observe relationships between elements in the CoI
Examine relationships between the CoI (or elements) and other data
Address validity and/or reliability of the CoI survey instrument
Presence Focus
Teaching, social & cognitive presence (83)
Teaching presence (5)
Social presence (2)
Cognitive presence (2)
Teaching & cognitive presence (2)
Social & cognitive presence (2)
Addition of Learner presence to the framework (4)
Addition of Emotional presence to the framework (2)
Modification of teaching presence to faculty presence (1)
Modification of teaching presence to instructor social presence (1)
Modification of the CoI
Survey Instrument
Minor wording changes in tense, pronouns, and nouns, e.g., “teacher, instructor” appear
in most studies (Stenbom, 2018).
Significant additions to the survey, significant deletion of survey items, significant
rewording of survey items, non-English surveys (26)
A small number of studies suggest that original survey design was “inspired” by the CoI
survey instrument.
Additions to the CoI Survey
Instrument
Studies included demographic data, information about the course context, e.g., full
time or part time study etc., and data related to learning outcomes.
Other Data
In addition to the CoI survey, studies incorporated additional datasets. These include
questionnaires on technology acceptance, Heutagogy, and perceived learning, as well as
• Analysis of transcripts from the OLE (using the CoI indicators of the presences)
• Interviews
• LMS analytics
• Exam/test scores
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics (small-scale exploratory studies)
Non-parametric tests e.g., Mann-Whitney U (comparative studies)
t-Tests
Regressions e.g., Hierarchical multiple regression where presences are pre-defined
independent variables (larger studies)
Structural equation modelling analysis (studies considering the relationship between
elements)
Cronbach’s alpha (reliability studies)
Factor analysis (studies addressing both reliability and validity) (32)
1. Where a study is underpinned by more than one rationale, it likely employs
more than one statistical test.
Based on 103 studies published between 2008 and 2017 and categorised by Stenbom (2018). Number of studies in
each category in (parentheses) where applicable.
2.5.1. Correlations and Causal Relationships
Between 2008 and 2017, researchers established causal relationships between the presences and
between the presences and other variables. In particular, the central role of teaching presence in establishing
37
social and cognitive presences and maintaining them during a course was all but confirmed by Garrison et
al. (2010b), Gutiérrez-Santiuste et al. (2015) and Lin et al. (2015). These findings were confirmed as
recently as 2019 by Dempsey and Zhang (2019). Social presence acts as a moderator between teaching and
cognitive presence (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Garrison et al, 2010b; Krozan & Richardson, 2014a). Using
factor analysis and chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) (Magidson, 1993; Magidson &
Vermunt, 2005), Shea and Bidjerano (2009) revealed that social presence, and specifically open
communication, was the most significant item correlated to variance in students’ responses to the survey
about cognitive presence. Where students express discomfort with discussion online, this correlates
strongly with lower levels of cognitive presence. However, where instructors take an active role in
facilitating discourse online, focusing discussion on relevant topics, and this is visible or explicit, students
report higher levels of cognitive presence (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009, p. 551) Cognitive presence thus
operates as a moderator between teaching and social presence (Kozan & Richardson, 2014a). Structural
equation modelling by Kozan suggests that, if instructors were to focus more on the establishment and
maintenance of cognitive presence in the OLE, this would have a flow-on effect of increasing social
presence (2016, p. 222). Table 2.6 lists examples from the literature that examine correlations between
presences and causal relationships between the presences and the key findings.
Table 2.7 Studies Examining Correlations & Causal Relationships in the CoI Framework
Author(s)
Title
Key Findings
Year
Correlation
Akyol & Garrison
The development of a community of
inquiry over time in an online course:
Understanding the progression and
integration of social, cognitive, and
teaching presence
Positive correlation between teaching,
cognitive, social presence, students'
perceived learning, and course
satisfaction
2008
Kozan & Richardson
New exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis insights into the
community of inquiry survey
All-pairs testing shows strong positive
correlation between teaching, social and
cognitive presence
2014
Causal Relationship
Shea & Bidjerano
Community of inquiry as a theoretical
framework to foster "epistemic
engagement" and "cognitive presence"
in online education
Causal relationship between presences.
2009
Garrison, Cleveland-
Innes & Fung
Exploring causal relationships among
teaching, cognitive and social presence:
Student perceptions of the community
of inquiry framework
Causal relationship between presences.
“[T]eaching and social presence have a
significant perceived influence on
cognitive presence and […] that
teaching presence is perceived to
influence social presence” (p. 31)
2010
Gutiérrez-Santiuste,
Rodríguez-Sabiote, &
Gallego- Arrufat
Cognitive presence through social and
teaching presence in communities of
inquiry: A correlational-predictive
study
Causal relationship between presences
2015
Lin, Hung, & Lee
Revalidate forms of presence in training
effectiveness: Mediating effect of self-
efficacy
Cognitive presence has a positive effect
on training effectiveness, self-efficacy
is positioned between teaching, social,
and cognitive presences
2015
Dempsey & Zhang
Re-Examining the Construct Validity
and Causal Relationships of Teaching,
Cognitive, and Social Presence in
Community of Inquiry Framework
Construct validity and causal
relationship between presences
2019
38
2.5.2. A Fourth Presence?
The literature includes attempts to add a fourth presence to the CoI framework. In a review of the
literature focusing on a so-called Nth presence, Kozan and Caskurlu (2018) identify seven presence
constructs those researchers have sought to integrate into the original framework. However, none of the
proposed presences have been validated to the same extent as teaching, social and cognitive presence, and
outside of the studies listed in Table 2.7, they don’t feature broadly in the literature. In addition, the
phenomena contributing to these “new” presences can be attributed to the existing presences using the
indicators of presence established previously.
Autonomy presence (Lam, 2015a, 2015b) explores unstructured learning initiated by individual
learners. This unstructured learning is driven, in part, by communication and exploration of concepts in
pursuit of learning outcomes (Lam, 2015a, p. 94). However, the idea of autonomy presence is problematic.
Autonomy is antithetical to community and shifts the focus away from the significant contribution of
constructivist thought underpinning the CoI framework described above. If an asynchronous delivery mode
is a feature of OTL, learners may be alone in the sense that they are distant in time and space from their
instructor and classmates, but that does not mean that autonomous learning occurs. Furthermore, where
autonomous learning does occur, it is already accounted for under cognitive presence. Emotional presence
is defined as the “[o]utward expression of emotion, affect, and feeling by individuals in a community of
inquiry, as they relate to and interact with the learning technology, course content, students, and the
instructor” (Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012, p. 283). Emotional presence is also problematic because
the outward expression of emotion, affect and feeling is already part of the CoI framework as a component
of social presence. Admittedly, positive and negative emotions impact how students (and instructors)
express themselves in an OLE, and there is a growing body of literature in TESOL/applied linguistics that
addresses the place of emotion in teaching and learning from sociological (e.g., Tsang & Jiang, 2018) and
socio-political (e.g., De Costa, Rawal, & Li, 2018) perspectives. Moreover, there is discussion about the
emotions that English teachers experience in materials selection (Tomlinson, 2018), integrating educational
technology into the curriculum (Azzaro & de Dios Martínez Agudo, 2018), and assessment (Brown, Gebril,
Michaelides, & Remesal, 2018; Dunn & Ernst-Slavit, 2018) – all of which are issues present in the existing
definitions and discussions of design and organisation, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction, the
subcategories of teaching presence. In sum, the elements of emotional presence and autonomy presence
seem to be covered by existing conceptualisations of presence in the CoI.
39
Table 2.8 Nth Presences
Author(s) Title Nth presence Corresponding
(Original) Presence Design Data Year
Lam Autonomy presence in the
extended community of inquiry
Autonomy presence
† Cognitive presence QL Interviews 2015a
Lam
The Student Experience of a
Blended Learning Accounting
Course:
A Case Study in Hong Kong
Autonomy presence
† Cognitive presence QL Interviews 2015b
Cleveland-Innes &
Campbell
Emotional presence, learning,
and the online learning
environment
Emotional presence Social presence M
Online
discussion
CoI Survey
2012
Stenbom et al. Hrastinski
& Cleveland-Innes
Emotional presence in a
relationship of inquiry: The case
of one-to-one online math
coaching
Emotional presence Social presence QN
Online
discussion
CoI Survey
2016
Stenbom, Jansson &
Hulkko
Revising the community of
inquiry framework for the
analysis of one-to-one online
learning relationships
Emotional presence Social presence QN
Text-based
messages
Digital
whiteboard
content
2016
Borup, Graham &
Drysdale
The nature of teacher
engagement at an online high
school
Teacher engagement Teaching presence QL Interviews 2014
Shea & Bidjerano
Learning presence: Towards a
theory of self-efficacy, self-
regulation, and the development
of communities of inquiry in
online and blended learning
environments
Learning
presence † Cognitive presence QN CoI Survey 2010
Shea, Hayes, Uzuner-
Smith, Vickers,
Learning presence: Additional
research on a new conceptual
Learning
presence † Cognitive presence QN CoI Survey 2012
40
Author(s) Title Nth presence Corresponding
(Original) Presence Design Data Year
Bidjerano, Picket, Gozza-
Cohen, Wilde, Jian
element within the community
of inquiry (CoI) framework
Shea & Bidjerano
Learning presence as a
moderator in the community of
inquiry model
Learning
presence † Cognitive presence QN Online
discussion 2012
Shea, Hayes, Uzuner-
Smith, Vickers
Online Learner Self-Regulation:
Learning Presence Viewed
through Quantitative Content
and Social Network Analysis
Learning
presence † Cognitive presence QN
Online
discussion
Learning
journals
2013
Shea, Hayes, Uzuner-
Smith, Gozza-Cohen,
Vickers & Bidjerano
Reconceptualizing the
community of inquiry
framework: An exploratory
analysis
Learning
presence † Cognitive presence QN Online
discussion 2014
Hayes, Uzuner-Smith &
Shea
Expanding learning presence to
account for the direction of
regulative intent: Self-, co-, and
shared regulation in online
learning
Learning
presence † Cognitive presence QL Online
messages 2015
QL= Qualitative QN= Quantitative M = Mixed Methods.
† = Suggests a new, fourth presence.
41
Finally, learning presence is defined as learners’ self-direction and engagement with the content in
the OLE (Shea et al., 2012, 2013). Learner presence has seen more investigation than any of the other
potential presences. Learner presence would seem to be synonymous with cognitive presence, that is, the
ability of learners to make sense of content at the metacognitive level. What needs to be learned, based on
communication with other members of a CoI, is a function of teaching presence in its capacity of
establishing social presence, in particular, open communication.
There are also examples of studies attempting to extend one of the presences. Unlike the so-called
Nth presences, these generally attempt to provide deeper theoretical examination of a presence in the service
of building on existing theory. These extensions are predominantly focused on teaching presence.
Distributed teaching presence (Coll et al., 2009; Engel, Coll & Bustos, 2013), for example, suggests that
teaching presence extends beyond the instructor and can be taken on by anyone in the community of inquiry,
both students and teachers. However, this notion merely emphasises the constructivist underpinnings of the
CoI and Garrison and Akyol’s (2013) explanation: “A key feature of the CoI framework is the integration
of personal and shared cognitive and teaching presences. All participants are both learners and teachers”
(p. 85). Ultimately, as Engel et al. (2013) suggest, “researchers deliberately use the notion of teaching
presence as opposed to teacher presence to emphasize the distribution of control and the responsibilities
amongst all participants in the development of a learning community” (p. 186).
A further proposed extension to the CoI framework is Instructor presence, which describes the
intersection of teaching presence and social presence (Richardson et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2016).
While seeking to expand a presence, Richardson et al. (2015) reinforce the existing idea that social presence
and teaching presence are interdependent (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010; Kozan & Richardson,
2014; Garrison, 2017; Yerby, 2017). Instructor social presence was first identified by Swan and Shih (2005)
and is correlated with student social presence. In theory, a high level in one presence positively impacts the
others. Conversely, a low level in one negatively impacts the others. Instructor social presence was further
examined by Thomas et al. (2017). Using video feedback transcripts, Thomas et al. find that video feedback
was richer in terms of “Phatics, Salutations” [indicators of social presence] and “Complimenting and
Expressing Appreciation” [indicators of social presence].
These presences extraneorum: autonomy, emotional, and learning, are conceivably useful in
examining OTL and characterising phenomena in a community of inquiry and in an OLE. Yet we find the
kinds of phenomena they are said to encompass, are already covered by the three validated presence
constructs. I describe the attempts to add to or extend the CoI because they occupy an experimental space
in the CoI literature but are a cautionary tale of sorts and have not found favour or been widely adopted. In
the present study, choosing not to add or remove components speaks to a desire not to distort the framework,
and why I choose instead to view the OLE through a multimodal lens and look for multimodal indicators
of the existing presences rather than to suggest something like a “multimodal presence” for an example.
The tripartite nature of the framework is lauded by Anderson (2016), along with the relative
simplicity of its implementation. It is also difficult to assign roles to members of the community, since
42
community roles evolve over time (Garrison, 2016) and each member is also responsible for each of the
three presences (Akyol & Garrison, 2011a). Ultimately, these studies seeking additional or expanded
presences all struggle to generalise their results, and are limited by a single context, single source of data,
or method of analysis (Kozana & Caskurlub, 2018). However, in the case of the present study, there is
potential to add to the existing indicators of presence by incorporating non-language semiotic resources.
There is no evidence in the literature that non-language semiotic resources have been considered as
indicators of teaching, social or cognitive presence, with one exception. The use of emoticons, and more
recently emoji, was identified from the beginning of the CoI literature as an indicator of affective
communication (Garrison et al., 2000; Rourke et al., 1999), which is confirmed by Weiss (2000), Tu (2002),
Tu and McIsaac (2002), Yamada and Akihori (2007) and Cobb (2009), who all found that the use of
emoticons in text-based communication was a way for students to “compensate for the lack of social context
cues” (Tu, 2000, p. 15).
2.5.3. Discipline-specific Differences
A final criticism that CoI researchers have attempted to address is the apparent discrepancy in CoI
survey results when completed by students in different disciplines. Around the same time as the
development of the CoI survey instrument, researchers examining OTL (e.g., Webb et al., 2005, Arbaugh,
2005b; Arbaugh & Rau, 2007; Hansen, 2008) began to recognise that, in addition to the design,
development and delivery of a course, other factors potentially influence course outcomes. These include
the LMS, course design paradigm, pedagogy, subject matter, and academic discipline (Arbaugh et al., 2010).
Previously, content and discipline were only given secondary attention in examining OTL as the primary
focus was on developing approaches with broad application across multiple disciplines (e.g., Davis & Wong,
2007). A rich literature spanning more than 50 years (e.g., Kuhn, 1970) has identified differences in
epistemological positions, curricular design, learning outcomes and student perceptions among different
disciplines. A more in-depth exploration of how we categorise different disciplines is, unfortunately,
outside of the scope of this study. However, I have applied Biglan’s (1973a) framework very broadly,
presuming that disciplines can be “hard” (quantitative, predictive, and experimental) or “soft” (qualitative,
concerned with educational development, and critical). Disciplines are also “pure” (largely theoretical) or
“applied” (practical). Chemistry is a good example of a hard/pure subject. Economics is a soft/pure subject.
Computer programming is a hard/applied subject, while law is a soft/ applied subject. Teacher education in
TESOL, as described in the present study, is a "soft” or applied subject, but I believe it sits much closer to
the “hard” end of Biglan’s continuum. This is based on aspects of language teaching such as the requirement
to understand grammar (a discrete system akin to systems found in the hard sciences). TESOL is also closer
to the pure end of the continuum given the need for language teachers to understand physiological and
cognitive elements of language and language acquisition.
Content has an influence on students’ perceptions of their learning. Using Biglan’s (1973a) matrix,
Arbaugh (2013) found that, the “harder” a subject is, the more students value social presence and associate
it with positive learning outcomes. However, in those “hard” subjects, if students perceive a lot of cognitive
43
presence, this is associated with learning less. When instructors prioritise direct instruction and discourse
facilitation in “soft” subjects, this is positively correlated with student perceptions of learning. Conversely,
in the “hard” subjects, direct instruction is valued by students who, it would seem, prefer a content expert
over discussion with peers (Arbaugh, 2013, p. 23). In the case of teacher education in TESOL, which sits
centrally in Biglan’s matrix, instructors walk a fine line, having to be the content expert as topics become
“harder” but also facilitating discourse as a means of modelling and using affective and open
communication to establish group cohesion as needed.
2.6. 2018 – 2022
2018 might signify the start of a fourth stage in the development and use of the CoI. This is the
point at which I left both the classroom and the OLE full-time to pursue a research agenda that began with
teaching presence and its relationship to online instructor satisfaction, and in this study, all three presences
of the CoI and multimodality. Notwithstanding my contributions to the subject, the period 2018 – 2022 is
significant from a research point of view because it begins with Stenbom’s (2018) systematic synthesis of
CoI survey research from the development of the survey until 2018. Stenbom (2018) is cited above because
of its coverage of the relevant period and because it acts as a successor to previous systematic reviews of
CoI literature by Rourke and Kanuka (2009) and to a lesser extent Garrison et al.’s (2010) review of the
first decade of the CoI.
Thankfully, the period 2020-2021 was not totally lost to the pandemic in terms of CoI research.
The year 2020 marked two decades of the use and research of the CoI marked by a retrospective
examination of the framework by Castellanos-Reyes (2020). In 2021 validity and the conceptualisation of
the CoI constructs of teaching, social, and cognitive presence were addressed by Abbitt and Boone (2021)
and Thymniou & Tsitouridou (2021) examined the CoI as it manifests in MOOCs. Perhaps the most
important study from this period in terms of the present study examines the use of global Englishes in
communities of inquiry in Malaysia (Smidt et al., 2021). What makes Smidt’s et al. (2021) study relevant
here is the participants: graduate students in applied linguistics and TESOL courses across three countries:
Malaysia, China, and Algeria, and the use of the CoI survey instrument to gauge student perceptions of the
presences in their OLEs. While Smidt et al. (2021) diverges from the present study, moving from students’
perceptions of presences to their use of Global Englishes in asynchronous discussion tasks, the deployment
of the CoI survey is all but replicated here with demographic questions and the addition of questions about
students’ perceptions of resources being the only differences between this study and the survey instrument
used by Smidt et al. (2021).
2.7. Conclusion
Choosing to use the CoI framework in this study is, firstly, a practical decision based on how widely
it has been adopted among researchers, practitioners, and designers. As a result of this widespread adoption,
a significant body of literature exists including numerous and successful validation studies of teaching,
social and cognitive presence. In addition, the CoI framework has been used to analyse and evaluate
44
instances of OTL across multiple disciplines, different teaching and learning contexts, and in numerous
locations (and languages). Comparable studies reported in the literature, validation, and broad use of the
CoI framework led me to consider it to be most applicable to the present study. The CoI framework, the
relative ease with which it can be described in professional development contexts, for example, and its
compatibility with other frameworks, also make its use here appropriate. The CoI framework, after 22 years,
still relies almost entirely on linguistic semiotic resources as evidence of teaching, social and cognitive
presence. While there has been some mention of emoji as an indicator of affective communication (cf. Shea
et al., 2010), other, non-linguistic resources are yet to be carefully examined. To expand our understanding
and examine the semiotic resource-rich OLE more fully, I employ a multimodal social semiotic approach.
In the next chapter, I turn to the theory and literature on multimodal social semiotics and describe how it
informs the present study.
45
Chapter 3 – Multimodal Social Semiotics
This chapter presents the core concepts that underpin multimodality, a field of study that recognises
communication as encompassing not only spoken and written language (linguistic semiotic resources), but
also non-linguistic semiotic resources. Non-linguistic semiotic resources include images, audio, videos,
colour, typography, and layout but also extend to touch, gesture, and three-dimensional space.
Multimodality is a multidisciplinary field that combines theoretical and practical approaches from
linguistics, semiotics, psychology, education (including TESOL), and other disciplines to understand
people’s meaning-making practices. The multimodal lens used in this study brings into focus both linguistic
and non-linguistic semiotic resources and examines how they work together in the online learning
environment (OLE).
I begin by outlining the core concepts, key assumptions, and approaches in multimodality research
based on relevant examples from the multimodal literature. I then discuss social semiotics; the approach
adopted in this study to examine online teaching and learning (OTL) and define key social semiotic
concepts. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to reviewing selected multimodal social semiotic
research that examines teaching and learning and identifying and evaluating approaches that inform the
present study.
3.1 What is Multimodality?
Multimodality is a field of study concerned with examining how semiotic resources, which include
modes such as speech, writing, visual design, and media such as audio and video, contribute to
communication in various social contexts. A multimodal perspective allows us to analyse how resources
other than language, including video, audio, typography, colour, layout, and images, are co-deployed in an
OLE. Multimodality is founded on four assumptions about communication (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress
et al., 2001; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; van Leeuwen, 2005), which are also adopted in this thesis and
will now be briefly outlined.
1. Communication is always multimodal. When we are communicating, we are selecting from
multiple different resources for making meaning, in order to convey a message (e.g., Kress et al.,
2001; Kress and van Leeuwen, 2001, 2006; Norris, 2004a; O’Halloran, 1999; van Leeuwen, 2001).
The communicative act of teaching is a dynamic process that takes advantage of a “plurality of
communicative means (linguistic, visual, material, and through action) in order to make ideas
appropriate and convincing to pupils” (Jewitt et al., 2001, p. 7). This is the case in both face-to-
face and online (synchronous or asynchronous) contexts.
2. Analysis that focuses on language alone cannot adequately account for meaning-making. Early 20th
Century semioticians such as Saussure (1966/2011) suggested that language should be studied
alongside other sign systems. This understanding is central to the present study, which examines
the use of non-linguistic resources in OLEs.
46
3. Semiotic resources differ in their affordances and meaning potentials but their interaction in texts
and semiotic practices is governed by shared semiotic principles. Different semiotic resources
present different potentials and limitations for communicating certain types of meaning in specific
contexts. For example, Bezemer et al. (2014, 2016) describe surgeons at a teaching hospital who,
despite having extensive, specialised language for describing anatomy, may refer to “that stuff”
and “that bit over there” while gesturing as students operate on a patient. Rather than using
specialised language, communication in this context relies on the co-deployment of succinct verbal
expressions with gestures that directly connect speech to parts of the immediate physical, here-and-
now, environment.
While acknowledging that different modes have distinct affordances, Kress & Van Leeuwen
posited that there is also “a set of common semiotic principles [such as framing and salience] that
operate within and across modes” (2001, p. 2). Bezemer and Kress (2016) illustrate this with the
principle of ‘intensity’:
All communities need means for expressing/realizing (the general semiotic feature) intensity.
In the mode of speech that is realized by the intensity of sound, ‘loudness’; it is also realized
lexically, e.g., as ‘very’. Lexis is available in the mode of writing as well; here intensity can
also be indicated by visual prominence, as in the use of a bold font, or by CAPITALIZING.
In the mode of gesture intensity might be realized by the speed of movement of the hand, or
by the extent of the movement. In the mode of colour, it might be done through degrees of
saturation.
(Bezemer & Kress, 2016, p. 17. Emphasis, and typography in original).
4. Modes work together in specialised roles. The meaning-making potential of semiotic resources is
socio-culturally defined. Each community develops their own understandings and ways of using
semiotic resources (Kress, 2010). Over time and with continued and regular use semiotic resources
may become modes, or resources, such as language or visual design, whose use has more
established conventions and is easier to teach, debate and model in formal and systematic ways
(Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress et al., 2001).
Different modes have distinctive potentials for making meaning. Therefore, meaning
realised by one semiotic resource cannot be exactly replicated by another (O’Halloran, 1991, p. 1).
The unique meaning-making potential of modes is also evident in some being better than others at
communicating certain meanings in certain contexts. In turn, the different potentials have an impact
on the choices we make about when and how to employ resources. Individual semiotic resources
can be used to communicate meaning, for example a checkmark (✓) generally means something is
“correct”. On the other hand, several semiotic resources can combine to communicate more
complex meanings. For example, a chart or diagram like the ones contained in this thesis, combine
colour, written language, images, written language and typography like font and type size, to
communicate information. Much of the research on multimodality has focused on modelling the
meaning-making potential of specific modes, for example visual design (Kress & van Leeuwen,
2021 [1996, 2006]; O'Toole, 1994) and sound (Van Leeuwen, 1999).
47
Within a society, modes develop specialised functions (Kress 2010). In a process that has taken
many hundreds of years, literate societies have adopted writing as a “carrier of formal information”
(Kress, 2003). An English language textbook for example, sees written language assume a
substantial “functional load” (Bezemer & Kress, 2008). However, the written language is not the
only “thing” on the page communicating meaning. In the example of a page in an English textbook,
written language is working in concert with typography, images, layout, and other semiotic
resources. The interaction, or the relationship between these different resources is just as important
for communication as the resources themselves. The key to understanding human communication,
then, is understanding the functions of different resources and the relationship between resources
as they work together (Jewitt, 2014a).
3.2. Approaches to Multimodality
The four assumptions about communication outlined above are shared by different approaches to
multimodality. This section will outline the main approaches. While there are at least eight approaches to
multimodality (Jewitt et al., 2016) which draw upon different theoretical and methodological traditions,
three have emerged as dominant in the literature: (1) Conversation Analysis (CA) (e.g., Mortensen &
Wagner, 2012) and its extension Multimodal Interactional Analysis (MIA) (Norris, 2004; Norris, 2020); (2)
Multimodal Social Semiotics (e.g., Kress, 2010; van Leeuwen, 2005); and (3) Systemic Functional
Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) (Baldry & Thibault, 2006; O’Halloran, 2004, 2008, 2011).
3.2.1. Multimodal Interactional Analysis (MIA)
Multimodal interactional analysis advances CA by studying social interaction alongside or in
addition to “talk” and “conversation”. MIA expands the analytical scope of CA by considering the
numerous semiotic resources typically co-deployed during interaction between two (or more) people (Jewitt,
2014, Jewitt et al., 2016). Whereas previously CA tended to examine very small, almost self-contained
snippets of interaction, sometimes identifying units of analysis no grander than a single one- or two-word
exchange, MIA recognises that resources such as reciprocity, turn-taking, ritualised behaviour, openings
and closings, proxemics, and actions work together to structure and regulate social interactions. Both CA
and MIA seek to reveal the nature of social order by examining and deconstructing interactions, sometimes
at the most minute level, for example, a single utterance and a non-verbal response between interlocutors.
They have thus enabled researchers to reveal the role non-verbal semiotic resources play in situated
interactions. In short, multimodal interaction analysis allows a researcher to study real people interacting
with others, with technology and with the physical environment (Norris, 2004; 2020). The kinds of close
observation and analysis undertaken in MIA are difficult to apply in an OLE. Aside from not focusing on
interaction, the asynchronous nature of the OLEs examined in this study mean that observation of real-time,
micro-interactional phenomena, such as gesture and eye contact, are difficult to capture, which renders
MIA an unsuitable approach for this study.
48
3.2.2. Systemic Functional – Multimodal Discourse Analysis
SF-MDA, like social semiotics, has its origins in M. A. K. Halliday’s theory of language as a social
semiotic (Halliday, 1978). Underpinning this theory is the understanding that language is just one of many
resources available for making meaning in society and that language and social context mutually shape
each other. From a social semiotic perspective, language has evolved in response to the three main functions
it serves in society. These functions are reflected in the way that language is organised as a semiotic system
(hence also known as ‘metafunctions’), as a resource that allows people to simultaneously realise three
broad types of meaning in any act of communication, or text: to represent ideas and experience (ideational
meaning); to enact and negotiate social relations and attitudes (interpersonal meaning); and to create
cohesion and coherence (textual meaning). SF-MDA studies pursue two key directions: employing the
metafunctions as lenses for the analysis of meaning in multimodal texts (e.g., O'Halloran, 2008) and
adapting Halliday’s principles for modelling language as a system of interrelated choices (Halliday, 1969;
Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) to mapping the meaning-making potential of semiotic resources other than
language (e.g., Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2021 [2006, 1996]) and their interaction in particular domains, for
example, mathematical discourse (O’Toole, 1994; O’Halloran, 2005), museum spaces (Martin & Stenglin,
2006) and online newspapers (Knox, 2007, 2008, 2009).
3.2.3. Multimodal Social Semiotics
Social semiotics is a multidisciplinary approach to enquiry that evolved from Linguistics,
especially Halliday’s (1978) work on language as a social semiotic (see §3.2.3.), semiotics, and critical
linguistics/critical discourse analysis (CDA), through the work of Gunther Kress, Robert Hodge, and Theo
van Leeuwen (Jewitt et al., 2016). Social semiotics seeks to understand the social and cultural elements of
meaning, how meaning is produced, interpreted, and circulated, and its implications (Jewitt et al, 2016, van
Leeuwen, 2005).
Rather than mapping the meaning-making potential of specific resources, studies taking a social
semiotic approach, like this one, are concerned with the meaning-making practices and how semiotic
resources are used in broader social contexts like teaching and learning. This makes social semiotics
particularly well suited to the examination of a range of non-linguistic semiotic resources being used across
multiple OLEs as examples of online teaching and learning as opposed to the analysis of OLEs or
interactions within OLEs as individual texts. I describe the core concepts underpinning social semiotic
approaches in §3.4.
3.3. Additional Approaches to Multimodality
In addition to these three main approaches, Jewitt et al. (2016) draws attention to five other
approaches to multimodality that combine ideas from CA, SF-MDA and social semiotics but employ
distinctive and “coherent research frameworks” (p. 109). Table 3.1offers a definition for each of these five
approaches accompanied by a reference to a recent study that follows the approach.
49
Table 3.1 Additional Approaches to Multimodality (Based on Jewitt et al., 2016)
Approach
Definition
Example
Geo-Semiotics
(Discourses in
Place)
A mostly social semiotic approach that
combines linguistic anthropology and
place semiotics to highlight both spatial
and material nature of semiotic
resources, signs, and interactions.
Sitting on the fence: A geosemiotic analysis
of school perimeters (Symes, 2021).
Multimodal
(Inter)action
Analysis
Combines sociolinguistics and social
semiotics to reveal how identity is
formed through interaction.
Picture books and critical literacy: Using
multimodal interaction analysis to examine
children's engagements with a picture book
about war and child refugees (Papen &
Peach, 2021).
Multimodal
Ethnography
A synthesis of social semiotics and
ethnography that examines semiotic
resources, texts, and other artefacts and
practices in context to explain how and
why people interact with each other.
Crossover literacies: A study of seventh
graders' multimodal representations in texts
about Pokémon Go (Strømman, 2021).
Multimodal
Corpus Analysis
Combines corpus analysis methods with
SFL and social semiotic approaches to
evaluate, critique, and validate
hypotheses and theories about meaning-
making through the analysis of artefacts
(Jewitt et al., 2016, p. 110).
AI2D-RST: A multimodal corpus of 1000
primary school science diagrams (Hiippala
et al., 2021).
Multimodal
Reception
Analysis
Combines cognitive approaches to
perception of language-based texts with
eye-tracking methods, social semiotics,
and SFL to focus on reception and
cognition.
Reading words and images: Factors
influencing eye movements in comic reading
(Kirtley et al., 2018).
While this PhD project is grounded in multimodal social semiotics, the studies presented in Table 3.1 have
provided some inspiration, for example Symes (2021), describes the linguistic landscape of schools
similarly to the way I view OTL as a “semiotic landscape” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) (see §4.2).
Semiotic resources in OTL have an affective potential akin to that observed by Papen and Peach (2021) in
children’s engagement with picture books. Strømman’s (2021) discussion of students’ multimodal
representations of Pokémon highlights students’ ability to make choices about semiotic resources and
contribute to a learning community multimodally. Kirtley et al. (2018) stimulated me to consider eye
movement as a possible measure for the effectiveness of the OLEs in the initial stages of my study. Finally,
Hiippala et al.’s (2021) multimodal corpus analysis sowed the seed for the content analysis method that I
developed for examining OLEs in this study, which is described in §5.5.5.
3.4. Multimodal Social Semiotics: Aims and Core Concepts
This section defines the aims and core concepts of multimodal social semiotics that are instrumental
to the present study and highlights their value for examining OTL. Social semiotics is an interdisciplinary
field. It not only draws on multiple theories, but it also invites scholarship from a diverse range of fields
and disciplines. Van Leeuwen (2005, p.1) notes that for a social semiotic inquiry to be successful “[it]
requires immersing oneself not just in semiotics concepts and methods as such but also in some other field”.
50
This is because social semiotic inquiry yields the best results when it is applied to a specific context, when
it examines a specific problem, or in the case of this study, has two specific real-world questions (RQ1 and
RQ2) to answer.
Semiotics is a social practice (van Leeuwen, 2005) and therefore all people, by virtue of all
communication being multimodal, have the capacity to be semioticians and fulfil the three main aims of
social semiotics by:
• Collecting, documenting, and systematically cataloguing semiotic resources while trying to
elaborate on their history.
• Investigating how those resources are employed by other people in specific historical, socio-
cultural, institutional, sub-national, national, and supra-national contexts and by doing so, account
for how people describe resources in these different contexts, how plan with them, teach with them,
critique them, and ultimately justify them; and
• Contributing to the discovery and development of new semiotic resources, new uses of existing
resources, and potentially describing new ways in which resources can be studied.
(Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 3)
Van Leeuwen’s (2005) aims, or perhaps agenda for social semiotics, reflects a shift in focus in social
semiotics towards examining semiotic practices incorporating semiotic resources rather than considering
semiotic resources in isolation. The present study fulfils these three aims of social semiotics articulated by
van Leeuwen (2015). The content analyses in the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study speak to the
first aim by identifying, categorising and enumerating semiotic resources in OLEs. The administration of
the COI survey instrument to students and semi-structured interviews with instructors address the second
aim and establish the historic and socio-cultural contexts the instructor-participants and their students
inhabit. Finally, integrating multimodal approaches with the COI works to fulfil the third aim by presenting
a new perspective on how we research semiotic resources and their exploitation in OTL.
Perhaps the most important social semiotic practice considered in the multimodal literature is
meaning-making. Meaning-making refers to the production of multimodal wholes that combine semiotic
resources, each of which has different potentials and limitations. (Jewitt et al., 2016). Meaning-making is
characterised by
[I]ndividual’s active shaping and reshaping of the resources that he or she has available, in
the wish to make representations match intentions as closely as possible.
Kress et al. (2001)
Meaning-making necessarily involves one or more people known as social actors. The social actors I
concentrate on in this study are the instructor-participants and their students who undertake acts of meaning-
making in the OLE. In a social semiotic approach, meaning-making is not just the creation of signs;
expressing, interpreting, and understanding are all acts of meaning-making (Jewitt, 2014). With Jewitt’s
definition in mind, there is a considerable amount of quite diverse meaning-making taking place in the
OLEs examined in this study. Instructors communicate subject content (an action or set of behaviours
associated with teaching presence), they communicate the metacognitive knowledge and strategies needed
by students to undertake tasks in the OLE (addressing cognitive presence) and encourage a sense of
51
community among students (social presence). Students interpret and construct knowledge (associated with
cognitive presence, especially exploration and integration), and respond to the instructor and their peers by
bringing their own experience to the subject (potentially associated with social presence). To represent
ideas in the OLE, instructors and students have to create signs that represent their meaning by using
different kinds of semiotic resources.
3.4.1. Signs
Social semiotics examines entities in which form and meaning appear as an integrated whole, which
we refer to as signs (Kress, 2010, p.61). Our contemporary understandings of the concept of a sign have
developed over more than a century from Saussure (see Figure 3.1), and Peirce (§3.4.1.1.) in the mid-late
19th century, Hjelmslev and Whitfield in the mid-20th century, through to Kress into the early 21st century.
Signs consist of two parts, the signifier – the physical form of the sign, which is made up of one or more
semiotic resources, and the “signified”, the mental image created by a combination of shapes, and words
for example (Saussure, 1966/2011):
Figure 3.1 Signifier & Signified (adapted from Saussure, 1966/2011)
3.4.1.1. Peirce's Doctrine of Signs
The complexity and breadth of Peircean semiotics (Peirce, 1955) and its account of signification,
representation, reference, and meaning (Aitken, 2013) has influenced many semioticians (including myself)
and goes well beyond the scope of the present study. However, the understanding of concepts like the
motivated sign and the focus on the agency of meaning makers that underpin this thesis echo key ideas in
the work of Peirce. Among them, the concepts of icon, index, and symbol are the most relevant to the
examination of semiotic resources in the OLE.
52
An icon signifies objects by resembling them. There is (as close as possible), a one-to-one
resemblance between the icon and the physical thing it represents. For example, an onomatopoeic word
resembles the sounds it represents. An index alludes to or evidences the thing it represents. The classic
example is smoke is an index of fire. Finally, a symbol, such as the word ‘cat’ in English or ‘고양이’ in
Korean, has no resemblance to the object or concept it represents, and its meaning is learned and usually
shared within a society.
The same can be said about icons, indices, and symbols used in the OLE. Peirce’s concept of the
icon is relevant to the present study since icons are the most common signs that appear in the OLE, for
example photographs depicting something that needs to be as close to the real thing as possible to
complement subject content. A photograph of a classroom illustrating a seating arrangement needs to be
iconic (in the Peircean sense) since the instructional value of the photograph rests in the accurate depiction
of a classroom setting. Likewise, indices are relevant to the present study. Take for example A diagram of
the same seating arrangement would constitute an index since it only alludes to a real classroom setting but
may still hold instructional value in terms of describing a classroom management behaviour and may be
preferred by some students in the OLE who find it easier to interpret diagrammatic representations of ideas
over photographs.
Like semiotic resources themselves, icons, indices, and symbols have shared meanings determined
socio-culturally, (potentially outside of the OLE), or defined by the “society” within the OLE, (members
of a community of inquiry). The ability for the smaller “society” of students and instructor to determine the
meaning of signs separate from broader society occurs because their use and interpretation changes
depending on context. For example, an icon depicting a sheet of paper with writing on it ( ) indicates a
document but within the OLE may represent a more specific idea such as an assessment task.
3.4.1.2. Kress' Notion of The Motivated Sign
The Sign is a central concept in all branches of semiotics. Signs provide us with the material means
for exchanging and understanding meaning, regardless of the semiotic resources employed. In social
semiotics signs are considered motivated by the interests of a meaning maker in a particular context (e.g.,
Kress, 1993). Therefore, social semiotics acknowledges that meaning makers have agency in creating
(rather than just “using” them) signs out of the semiotic resources available to them and most appropriate
for representing the meanings they want to communicate. The concept of the motivated sign describes the
relationship between the material parts of a sign, the way it is materialised using semiotic resources, and
the meaning a person attempts to convey. We cannot ignore the relationship between a semiotic resource
and meaning. Semiotic resources are thus not arbitrary grammatical building blocks. Instead, the form a
semiotic resource takes and the meaning it conveys are linked. Finally, the reasoning behind a sign maker’s
choices in creating a sign is described by the term interest, the culmination of all the contextually relevant
knowledge and social experience of the sign maker that shapes their outlook and subjectivity (Jewitt et al.,
2016). Interest triggers the making of a sign in response to something.
53
In the OLE, instructors and students in a community of inquiry are offered multiple semiotic
resources to create signs and make meaning. Although the available resources might differ between
different learning management systems (LMSs), the software platform the OLE is built on, but the nature
of the internet and web standards mean that there are commonalities between LMSs like Google Classroom
and Moodle for example. Some resources are native to the LMS such as typography and colour, while
others may be brought into the LMS such as images and video. Signs, and the semiotic resources they are
made of, reflect an instructor's views on diverse issues such as pedagogy, English teaching in a global
context, TESOL methods, and the nature of teaching and learning overall. The development of the sign as
a concept fundamental to all types of semiotic study is chronicled, in part, in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Development of Definitions of ‘Sign’, 1953 – 1997.
Author(s)
Title
Description of a Sign
Year
Saussure
Course In General
Linguistics
A sign is a ‘double entity’ consisting of ‘signifier’
(a ‘sound image’) and ‘signified’ (the concept it
represents).
1966/2011
Peirce
Philosophical
Writings of Peirce
A sign is comprised of the (form of the) sign (or
‘representamen’), an ‘object’ to which the sign
refers and an ‘interpretant’, that is, the meaning of
the relationship between the object and the sign
representamen for an interpreter. This foregrounds
processes of semiosis as (ceaseless) sign
production.
1955
Hjelmslev
&
Whitfield
Prolegomena to a
Theory of Language
Signs can be organised into paradigms of similar
objects organised as systems of choices.
1953
Kress
Against arbitrariness:
The social production
of the sign as a
foundational issue in
critical discourse
analysis
The motivated sign is essential to critical discourse
analysis and a sign maker’s interest – their socio-
historical, and contextual “history” drives its use.
Signs are not arbitrary constructs. Treating signs
as arbitrary limits our ability to identify non-
linguistic resources, restricts understanding of the
logics and affordances of spoken and written
language, and prevents a focus on the agency of
meaning makers and their ability to shape semiotic
resources.
1993
Kress
Before writing:
Rethinking the paths
to literacy
Social semiotics has a similar perspective on the
‘sign’ as Peirce in that signs connect the resources
available to the sign maker that are the most apt to
express their intended meaning. As a result, signs
are constantly made anew, always transformative,
even if the transformation is barely perceptible.
1997
54
3.4.2. Semiotic Resources
Social semiotics extends beyond language and other established sign systems, to examine various
kinds of semiotic resources. Van Leeuwen defines semiotic resources as
The actions and artefacts we use to communicate whether they are produced
physiologically – with our vocal apparatus; with the muscles we use to create facial
expressions and gestures etc. – or by means of technologies – with pen, ink and paper’ with
computer hardware and software; with fabrics, scissors and sewing machines etc.
(Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 3)
In other words, using semiotic resources is how individuals make meaning (Kress, 2010; Kress &
van Leeuwen, 2001; van Leeuwen, 2004). Semiotic resources are not limited to language and can
incorporate embodied resources such as gesture. Semiotic resources are shaped by, express and thereby
reveal social values and structures. Put simply, semiotic resources cannot be separated from the socio-
cultural context that they operate in and over time shape. A semiotic resource can also be transformed
(Kress, 2010) by socio-cultural influences, and by the people who shape the resources they employ to make
meaning, depending on the context they find themselves in, the resources available to them, and the
requirements of any given situation. While a certain meaning can be communicated using a single semiotic
resource, in an OLE, it is common to find numerous semiotic resources coalescing in a semiotic ensemble.
For example, the use of a semiotic software like H5P to create an interactive task may include written
language, image, and video which work together, and to some extent are dependent on each other to
communicate an instructor’s intended meaning.
Semiotic resource is a very general concept encompassing modes, media, and semiotic artefacts.
This study is not analysing the OLE as a text, so the more general notion of a “semiotic resource” defined
by how semiotic resources appear in the OLE, their availability and how they are represented in the user
interface, is sufficient for its purposes.
3.4.2.1. Mode
Modes are many and varied, and many are not “permanent”, which is to say they can’t readily be
observed (although they might be heard, or felt), while others enjoy only a brief temporal existence before
disappearing, for example, gesture. Although the notion of ‘mode’ is still a subject of debate, this study
adopts the definition of mode as “a socially shaped and culturally given resource for making meaning”
(Kress, 2017, p. 60). This definition gives us a measure of leeway because it is dependent on what is counted
as a well-acknowledged regularity within a community (Kress, 2010). It is possible to establish such
regularity within a small community like that in an OLE, for instance, or perhaps more broadly, such as in
a discipline like teacher education in TESOL and more broadly still, such as in the field of applied
linguistics. For a semiotic resource to be considered a mode, Bateman et al. (2017, pp.116-117) argue that
it must operate at the level of discourse semantics. A semiotic mode, according to Bateman et al. (2017),
must contain both meaning and the mechanism for interpreting that meaning. However, modes do not just
55
spontaneously appear. Instead, they develop over time and only when there is a suitable material substrate,
or medium, for a certain type of resource to inhabit (cf. O’Halloran, 2009).
3.4.2.2. Medium and Materiality
Traditionally, medium consisted of stone, paper, or ink, referring to the technologies of description
(Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). In a grammar of typography, Stöckl (2005) lists medium under
paratypography. Bateman (2011) proposed three strata that a mode requires, the first of which was a
material substrate – a medium – to “carry” the semiotic resources that make up the mode. In the case of the
OLE then, the medium or the “material substance” in which the OLE is contained is the internet. The
material substrate must be able to be controlled or manipulated by users so that it can be put to work in
creating meaning (Hiippala, 2014). Social semiotics uses medium to refer to the intervening “substance”
that “contains” a sign. Kress et al. (2001) refers to the
material substance which is worked on or shaped over time by culture into an organised,
regular, socially specific means of representation i.e., a meaning-making resource or mode.
(Kress et al., 2001, p. 13).
3.4.2.3. Semiotic Artefact
A semiotic artefact is a type of semiotic resource that incorporates and offers access to an array of
semiotic resources (modes as well as media) and these can be integrated with others from outside the
artefact in particular way (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018). A semiotic artefact is the culmination of the
selection of semiotic resources, media, and the relevant meaning-making principles used by a meaning
maker. Such artefacts are evidence of someone attempting to address a communicative goal or
communicate within a specific context, for example on social media, in a lecture, or within the OLE. In this
study, semiotic software such as H5P (the most prominent example of semiotic software in Moodle-based
OLEs) and Google Docs (the most prominent example of semiotic software in Google Classroom-based
OLEs) are examples of semiotic artefacts that are incorporated into the OLE (see §3.4.2.3.).
The notion of software as a semiotic technology, that is, a technology for making meaning, has
emerged as an important focus for research in social semiotics over the last decade. Semiotic software is
an example of a semiotic artefact and is characterised by the ability of users to first select from a wide range
of different semiotic resources, combine them and create signs to communicate meaning. The selection and
use of semiotic resources by users also incorporates and represents knowledge about “what constitutes
effective use of [those] resources in particular contexts” (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018). This is important
given that knowledge about the appropriate use of different media is an element of direct instruction in
teaching presence (see §2.2.1.). In the present study, semiotic software is categorised as one of the semiotic
resources available to instructors incorporated into the OLE during the design and development process
(see §4.2.9.).
56
3.4.3. Semiotic Practices
A semiotic practice is a social practice in which social actors such as TESOL instructors and their
students, use semiotic resources, presentation styles and performance modes do things in ways that are
socially regulated and defined (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018). Teaching and learning is a semiotic practice.
This study does not specifically look at or categorise the practices that are involved in teaching and learning,
choosing instead to focus on individual semiotic resources but it is these resources that enable
communicative semiotic practices in the OLE. There has been a shift in the literature on social semiotics
towards examining practice evident in studies of semiotic software that consider both the resources made
available to people and people use and talk about them. A focus on semiotic practice is also central to
studies of semiotic software. Studies examining semiotic software have reported on the use and affordances
of numerous tools like office software applications such as PowerPoint (Djonov & Van Leeuwen, 2011,
2012, 2013; Zhao et al., 2014; Zhao & van Leeuwen, 2014), Microsoft Word (Kvåle, 2016), social media
platforms (Poulsen & Kvåle, 2018), and website building applications (Kvåle & Poulsen). These studies,
however, tend to focus on a specific software tool and the resources it incorporates. My focus is not on a
specific LMS tool such as Moodle or Google Classroom, or on the software tools that can be integrated
into them. Instead, I focus on OTL, meaning these kinds of software tools and the practices they engender
are considered alongside other semiotic resources.
The stronger focus on practice is also evident in concepts like site of display and the various
creation constraints discussed by Bateman (2008).
3.4.3.1. Site of Display
The site of display (Bezemer & Kress, 2008) is, quite literally, where signs are displayed, or where
we see them. While a poster uses glossy paper and ink as its medium, we might consider its site of display
a wall or a noticeboard. The site of display is more than the medium used to create a sign, and not just what
is displayed. The site of display encompasses the interaction between what is displayed and the people who
use it (Jones, 2017, p. 139). This is particularly important for the present study. The OLE is an interactive
space (ideally) and the site of display, a screen has an impact on how that interaction takes place. For
example, Minović et al. (2008) investigated the usability issues that arise when students interact with an
LMS on a PC and then on a mobile device with a much smaller screen. Moreover, the site of display can
change how the OLE looks to students, depending on the device they are using to access it. Take for
example the Moodle LMS, on a computer monitor a toolbar appears on the right side of the page. The same
toolbar appears at the bottom of the page when viewed on a mobile device. Thus, the site of display has the
potential to change layout if it is not considered when building the OLE in the LMS.
57
3.4.3.2 Constraints in Semiotic Practices
A site of display may impose restrictions on the author of a sign in terms of the mode and/or
semiotic resources they choose to use. In examinations of genre, Bateman (2008) theorised a trio of
constraints on the creation of what is referred to as a “virtual artefact” like a poster, or for our purposes, a
page in an OLE:
1. canvas constraints – restrictions imposed on the author in relation to the medium the virtual artefact
is being transmitted in e.g., on a computer monitor versus a mobile device,
2. production constraints – restrictions caused by the means of production, such as word limits and
“enforcing fonts to be above a certain minimum size to avoid the characters bleeding into one
another due to high absorbency [of ink by paper]” (Bateman, 2008, p.16), and
3. consumption constraints – restrictions placed on an author by the practicalities their audience must
deal with such as time, place, and cost.
Additionally, consumption constraints also impose restrictions on authors who must ensure the utility of
their virtual artefact i.e., is it easy to “read”? Can it be understood? Is it fit for purpose? Is the author making
any assumptions about the expertise of readers that may not be accurate (Bateman, 2008, p. 19)? The
concept of constraints is applied at the text level by Bateman (2008). These constraints are applicable to
the instructor-participants as they design and develop their subjects and then deliver them via their OLEs.
3.5. Multimodal Social Semiotics and Education
The literature on social semiotics and multimodality contains many examples of studies that
examine educational contexts. A common starting point in the literature is the role of the instructor. If we
think of learning in the OLE as a series of interconnected meaning-making processes, then the role of the
instructor in choosing semiotic resources to use in teaching is an important one. Instructors “exercise
pedagogic design choices by instantiating their ‘willingness’” (Jewitt, 2006, p. 27). In other words, the
choices instructors make when implementing semiotic resources in the OLE reflect their beliefs, past
experiences, and understandings of pedagogy. For this study, this means that uncovering instructors’ beliefs
and values about pedagogy for teaching online is key for a better understanding of the choices they make
about semiotic resources. This is accomplished using semi-structured interviews with instructor-
participants (see §5.5.6.) and the ideas they articulate corroborated by a content analysis of their OLE (see
§5.5.5.). In this section I present examples from the literature that report studies comparable to the present
one or that provide methodological inspiration.
3.5.1. Understanding Teaching and Learning as Multimodal Practices
One of the early social semiotic studies to emphasise the value of adopting a multimodal approach
to the study of teaching and learning was Kress et al.’s (2001) Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The
Rhetoric of the Science Classroom. Kress et al. (2001) examined the “multiplicity” of modes in the science
classroom (2001, p. 1), recognising speech and writing as simply two of many modes that teachers and
students employ in this context. Their transcription and qualitative analysis of video observations of
58
science classes highlighted the important contributions of a range semiotic resources in the meaning-
making practices of teaching and learning. In addition to spoken and written language, facial expressions
and gaze, hand and arm gestures, objects such as chalk or a cup in the teacher’s hand, and the position of
the teacher relative to students, the front of the classroom or whiteboard were revealed as instrumental to
the ways in which the teacher made meaning.
The description of the use of semiotic resources in science classrooms by Kress et al. (2001) is
consistent with those found elsewhere in the literature: signs created by science teachers and students are
influenced by socio-cultural factors and shaped by their use. The teachers and students observed via video
excerpts by Kress et al. each articulate meaning in response to the practical and social requirements of the
community and situations they find themselves in (Kress et al., 2001, p. 11). In fact, this influence is noticed
across subject areas, with O’Halloran’s (2005) SF-MDA study of mathematics classrooms, for example,
unravelling how socio-cultural factors shape the use of resources such as language, mathematical
symbolism and images. Importantly for the present study, the meaning manifest in speech or writing, is
consistently and inseparably tied to meanings made with other modes (Kress et al., 2001, p. 11). This means
that, in the OLE, instructors cannot rely solely on written language but also need to understand, for example,
that arbitrarily using an image in the OLE to “break up the text” is not sufficient.
3.5.2. English in Urban Classrooms (Kress et al., 2005)
Another seminal work that informs the study presented in this thesis is Kress et al.’s (2005) English
in Urban Classrooms: A multimodal perspective on teaching and learning. This work demonstrates the
value of a multimodal social semiotic approach for research in language education. It reports the results of
a two-year study of English classrooms in the United Kingdom designed to address the question “Can you
understand English if you focus on speech and writing alone?”. Through a series of case studies, Kress et
al. (2005) found that the teaching and learning of English relies on the use of not just language but also
images, gesture, movement, gaze, and classroom space.
English in Urban Classrooms notes the ascendency of non-linguistic modes of communication in
teaching and learning in language and literature education. The organisation of the physical classroom space,
the visual items displayed on classroom walls, and the use of film for teaching literature are specific
examples that have corollaries in the present study in the form of choices in layout, images, and video in
the OLE. Another important finding of that project was that the classroom, the organisation of the space,
and the visual displays contained therein reflect the pedagogical approaches of the teacher, that is, that “the
classroom is like any other physical constructed site – designed with built-in values and purposes” (Kress
et al., 2005, p. 38). At the same time, Kress et al. (2005) observed that teachers and students did not discuss
or debate non-linguistic modes of communication as explicitly as language. This raises the question of the
extent to which TESOL instructors are intentional in employing and explicit in modelling the use of non-
linguistic resources in OTL.
59
English in Urban Classrooms was part of a set of studies examining the impacts of considerable
educational policy change in the UK in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Kress et al. (2005) showed that
examining the co-deployment of semiotic resources in classroom episodes at the micro level, can reveal
connections between pedagogic practices and the broader politico-socio-cultural and policy context. Put
another way, this relationship reflected the constraints and restrictions placed on classroom practice by
policy and politics at the macro level. Understanding the connection between the politico-socio-cultural
and policy context and classroom practice is important because of the growing significance of OTL in
higher education since the start of the COVID19 pandemic, and the sometimes changing and uncertain
regulatory and policy environment at the institutional, state, and federal level that accompanies that growth.
Indeed, Kress et al. (2005) presaged the growing prominence of OTL and noted:
[I]t is possible from our perspectives on English to reflect on to other subjects, and maybe to
understand processes there in ways not otherwise possible. But it is also possible to extend this
insight to other modes and sites of teaching. Consider the matter, ever more pressed on and pressing
for education as an institution, of using the facilities of the new information and communication
technologies as the main – or at least a major – vehicle for teaching
(Kress et al., 2005, p. 168)
3.5.3. Multimodality and Design in Education Contexts
In a critical review of multimodal studies in education, Jewitt (2008), described multimodality and
literacy as necessary elements of teaching and learning in the 21st century. The review underscored the
choice of mode and media as integral to representing knowledge and therefore learning (Jewitt, 2008, p.
241). The ways in which content knowledge is represented shape both what is taught and how it is learned.
Therefore, exploring how knowledge is multimodally represented in the classroom (or in the OLE) is
essential for better understanding teaching and learning (Jewitt, 2008, pp. 241 – 242).
Another benefit of adopting a multimodal perspective, reflected in Jewitt’s (2008) review, is that it
can uncover teachers’ values related to pedagogy, the efficacy of modes, and epistemology. This
understanding is incorporated in the notion of ‘design’, or “how people make use of the resources that are
available at a given moment, in a specific communicational environment, to realise their interests as sign
makers” (Jewitt, 2008, p. 252). In other words, design is about the operationalisation of a person’s interest
(see §3.4.2.1.).
Multimodal approaches to teaching and learning ask instructors to consider the affordances (and
limitations) of resources, identify what curriculum resources are designed to do (i.e., how their use could
support learning outcomes) from using the resource, and describe how instructors and students co-deploy
and interpret the meanings construed through different resources. In addition, Jewitt suggests that a
multimodal approach to teaching and learning offers instructors an opportunity to reflect on their pedagogic
use of semiotic resources and to critique and redesign aspects of their practice as needed (Jewitt, 2008, p.
263). This is a particularly powerful statement in light of the conceptualisation of reflective practice as well
as the importance of reflection and professional development advanced in the present study.
60
3.6. Social Semiotics and Teaching Practice
Research examining how TESOL instructors exploit specific semiotic resources in OTL has not
been the focus of many studies in the literature so far, so this section offers a review of studies that report
on similar higher education contexts, adopt similar perspectives on multimodality, or establish precedent
relevant to the study reported in this thesis. In this section, I describe specific examples of the use of
multimodal approaches in classroom practice. For me, practice begins well before a lesson does, reflected
in the design and organisation subcategory of teaching presence and this chronology is often represented in
the studies discussed in this section.
3.6.1. Multimodal Analysis of the Online Learning Environment
Social semiotic research reporting on the use of LMSs (especially in education) seems to focus on
instructors’ design choices overall (e.g., Bennett et al., 2011; Bennett et al., 2015), rather than how
individual or specific semiotic resources are exploited. Of the research on LMSs, Derboven et al. (2017)
stands out for examining the semiotic software tools instructors employ. Derboven et al. (2017) adopted a
social semiotic multimodal and ethnographic approach to investigate how instructors (n=28) at several
higher education institutions in Belgium created tasks in the LMS. Echoing Jewitt (2013), Derboven et al.
argued that the design of the user interface or layout of the OLE “speaks for designers”, and that “the
interface contains all the meaning that designers have embedded in [it]” (Derboven et al., 2017, p. 21), or
reflects instructors’ values and beliefs about pedagogy.
In a two-stage research design, instructor choices regarding semiotic software were examined using
a content analysis approach informed by the metafunctions in systemic functional theory. The analysis
categorised these choices and the subsequent tasks instructors created in the LMS in terms of their functions
as presentational, orientational, or organisational. 10 In the second stage, an ethnographic approach
consisting of observations, in-depth interviews with instructors, and a diary study was employed to gather
qualitative data. This enabled the choices revealed in the first stage to be related to the observations of
instructors’ use of the LMS and their views about it.
Derboven et al. found a tendency they described as ‘functionality migration’, where instructors
often employed software tools outside of the LMS, such as the web-based quiz tools Kahoot or Socrative,
even though similar tools were available in the LMS. Where instructors did use functionality built into the
LMS, they were likely to use more general communication tools rather than specialised ones. The authors
concluded that this kind of behaviour evidenced instructors considering what tools they have at hand or are
most familiar with and using them to serve their needs in that moment while also reflecting the influence
of social factors such as common understandings of the role of the LMS and what it can contribute to an
educational experience (Derboven et al., 2017, p. 37). This finding reflects the social semiotic
10 Although all three of these metafunctions operate simultaneously, Derboven et al. (2017) identify the “accent” or the primary
metafunction at play in analysing communication in the OLE (cf. Derboven et al., 2017, p. 22)
61
understanding that meaning-makers select from the semiotic resources available to them those that they see
as most apt for expressing the meanings that serve their interests in a given context (Kress, 2010). Finally,
Derboven et al.’s examination of instructor use of the LMS provides evidence that a multimodal social
semiotic approach is one that can be used for researching how instructors tailor their OLEs and is
comparable to the present study in that they both use methods such as a content analysis to gain insight on
other data sets such as that stemming from interviews.
Figure 3.2 Functionality Migration in the LMS (Derboven et al., 2017)
Note. Functionality migration, within the LMS (solid arrows), and from the LMS to other applications
(dashed arrows).
3.6.2 Integrating Social Semiotics and Other Perspectives in Classroom Practice
Science and mathematics classrooms are arguably the educational contexts that have attracted the
most attention from researchers applying multimodal perspectives (both social semiotics and SF-MDA) to
the examination of teaching and learning. Of particular interest, Lemke (1990) not only describes the
semiotic resources used in the science classroom, but also ties it to societal issues, attitudes and interests
and the behaviours manifest in the classroom. Moreover, Lemke’s inclusion of “practical methods for
changing the methods of teaching” (1990, p. 167) is an example of the practitioner-focused approach I
strive to emulate in this study. Mathematics, and especially the role of mathematical symbolism and visual
display alongside language in classroom discourse have also been the focus of a body of research by
O’Halloran (e.g., 1998, 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2015). A trio of studies that consider the affordances of
diagrammatic representation in astronomy (Airey, 2015; Airey & Eriksson, 2019; Airey & Linder, 2017)
is also fascinating, in examining the meanings construed through images in general and specifically
scientific diagrams that are widely used in that context. It is not possible to review all this research. However,
62
before turning to a small number of studies about TESOL education, I review two recent studies from
science and mathematics that highlight the insights into the multimodality of teaching and learning afforded
by combining social semiotics and other educational frameworks.
For example, Moro et al. (2020) sought to uncover the characteristics of a “good” science teacher
by combining Joint Action Theory in Didactics (JATD) and social semiotics alongside elements of
multimodal interaction analysis (MIA) (Norris, 2004) (see §3.2.1.). JATD (e.g., Sensevy, 2012; Sensevy &
Quilio 2002) holds that human actions are pragmatic in orientation; for example, learning is an outcome
tied to teaching. Adopting a narrative methodology, Moro et al. (2020) examined two teachers’ use of
various semiotic resources in upper high school science classes in two linguistically different contexts.
They observed and video-recorded organic chemistry classes in Brazil and physics classes in France, with
a specific focus on how teachers presented new content or offered feedback after an activity.
Recruiting participants with 10+ years of science teaching experience and observing classes in
different languages was a purposeful attempt to show both contrasts in their approaches and similarities in
their use of semiotic resources, despite different cultural norms and institutional requirements. A close
multimodal analysis of one-minute video excerpts of classroom episodes in which each teacher presented
new content or provided feedback allowed the researchers to identify, categorise and quantify the embodied
semiotic resources and semiotic artefacts each teacher used. In addition, students completed a questionnaire
eliciting their perceptions of their science lessons, their teacher’s approach, and teaching style and whether
they considered the teacher to be a “good” science teacher.
Social semiotic theory maintains that sign makers use the semiotic resources they have available
to them at any given time (Kress, 2001). Moro et al. is important because the study reveals teachers’ use of
“artefacts, that are incidentally present in the classroom, for meaning-making processes, enrich[ing] the
milieu with different semiotic resources and using [the resources] in a particular way to make available
signs that can make sense for the students” (Moro et al., 2020, p. 27). The teachers were observed using
sheets of paper, overhead neon lights, and molecular models (even when molecules were not being
discussed). In doing so, the authors argued, “teachers also stimulate students to do the same with the
artefacts available to them in their everyday lives” (2020, p. 27 emphasis mine). Teachers were observed
modelling a semiotic behaviour that students saw and emulated. This finding highlights the value of
examining semiotic resources available to instructors and learners within a learning environment. It also
suggests that the modelling that instructors provide is important for the application of skills and knowledge
both inside and outside of the classroom. Finally, Moro et al. (2020) suggested that knowledge of the use
and scope of semiotic resources in the classroom could inform professional development for teachers (p.
30).
Another example of the potential of a social semiotic perspective to enrich frameworks from
educational research is Psycharis and Morgan’s (2012) investigation of teachers’ and students’ multimodal
meaning-making in a computer-generated 3D space called MachineLab Turtleworlds (MaLT), where users
can manipulate graphically rendered 3D mathematical objects (Kynigos et al., 2009). The study sought to
63
understand students’ interaction and meaning-making processes through the use of MaLT employing
different research studies carried out by researchers working in different contexts under different theoretical
perspectives.
Underpinned by both social semiotics and constructionism, a perspective of situated abstraction as
a process of layering meanings on each other (cf. Papert, 1980; Harel & Papert, 1991), the study adopted a
cross-experimentation methodology11 (Artique, 2009), with two experiments conducted independently by
different research teams. One research team video-recorded a Grade 7 lesson in Greece and the other a
Grade 8 lesson in London. The recordings captured episodes of student interaction, use of gesture, and the
visual and physical resources available, including the computer screen, as students completed tasks in the
3D space in pairs and small groups, and were augmented by observational notes and samples of students’
work.
The integration of social semiotics and constructionism, as Psycharis and Morgan (2012) argued,
allowed complex communication to be broken down into more manageable chunks for easier analysis.
However, the study focuses on adding to the theoretical understanding of the education and constructionism
fields, rather than on how the semiotic resources contribute to creating a successful learning environment.
Social semiotics accounted for teachers’ and students’ use of semiotic resources while constructionism
described the contribution of resources and their interaction to different layers of meaning. For example,
the study found that in both classes gesture and proxemics enabled students to visualise mathematical
concepts (e.g., iconic gestures12 helping to represent the trajectory of an object in the 3D space). Echoing
Moro et al.’s (2020) observations of students emulating their teachers, Psycharis and Morgan (2012)
revealed that the gestures students used to communicate with their partners or groups resembled the gestures
teachers used to complement spoken and written language and mathematical symbols when delivering
instruction.
Together, the studies reviewed in this section (Moro et al. 2020; Psycharis and Morgan (2012)
illustrate the value of using social semiotic approaches to complement other research frameworks from
various educational disciplines. Integrating social semiotics helps researchers to understand the role of non-
linguistic semiotic resources in teaching and learning. The studies also indicate that the use of semiotic
resources by instructors becomes a model of how resources could be employed by students outside of the
classroom to represent knowledge. The present study builds on this research by focusing on the semiotic
resources used by instructors in OTL (rather than the embodied resources that are used in classroom and
face-to-face contexts), modelling the effective use of semiotic resources in the intervention in the second
11 Cross-experimentation is a methodological approach focusing on collaboration among researchers (Artique, 2007), which seeks
to facilitate understanding across multiple research teams and towards integrated views of technology use in education. In a cross-
experimentation approach, two or more disparate research teams develop and conduct experiments independently in a manner best
suited to their local context. The results are then brought together and analysed, looking for themes and other results consistent
between the two sets of data.
12 Iconic gestures are visual representations of referential meaning. For example, a flat hand turned perpendicular to the ground
and rapidly moved up and down could represent the chopping of an onion.
64
stage of this study, and integrating social semiotics with the COI framework. If one criticism could be
levelled at the two studies reviewed in this section, it is the lack of a more explicit voice for the instructors.
Omitting the perceptions and recollections of the people involved in the communicative acts being observed
leaves us with less than the whole story. In addition, the data gathered from methods like interviews can
add weight to the kinds of observational findings reported in both studies. Thus, the present study employs
semi-structured interviews to provide instructors with a voice, and to corroborate quantitative data gathered
via other methods (see §5.5.6.).
3.7. Multimodality and Teacher Education in TESOL
I want to now examine studies that focus on how multimodal approaches are reported in the teacher
education in TESOL literature. Specifically, studies that focussed on instructors designing multimodal EFL
content to promote learners’ multimodal literacies and teachers’ integration of multimodality into
classroom practice. The first, reported by So et al. (2019) integrates social semiotics and the technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) (see §2.1.2.) in designing
and evaluating a professional development intervention for English teachers. The second, Choi and Yi
(2015) examined how multimodal practice can be integrated into teacher education in TESOL.
3.7.1. An Example of Multimodal Professional Development
The TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) focuses on the “connections among teachers’
understanding of content, pedagogy, and technology, and how they interact with one another to produce
effective teaching” (Koehler et al., 2013, p. 101). So et al. (2019) cites teachers’ lack of confidence and
efficacy in designing multimodal, technology-integrated learning environments as a rationale for designing,
delivering, and evaluating a professional development intervention. The intervention comprised a 14-hour,
two-day workshop delivered face-to-face to 36 English language teachers with an average of 13.7 years’
experience. The workshop was designed using a learning by design (LBD) approach (e.g., Cope &
Kalantzis, 2011, 2015). LBD emphasises teachers designing learning experiences for their learners based
on broad learning goals and curriculum standards but also that teachers are purposeful learning designers,
rather than (just) curriculum implementers (Kalantzis & Cope, 2014, 2016).
Adopting a mixed methods approach, So et al. (2019) administered the TPACK survey (n=28)
before and after the intervention and conducted observations during the intervention and a semi-structured
focus group interview with nine of the workshop participants. The key finding was an increase in mean
scores to the elements of the TPACK overall and especially in both content knowledge and technological
content knowledge. This quantitative account of changes in teachers’ perceptions of their ability to integrate
multimodal approaches into their curriculum reveals the efficacy of professional development that, like the
intervention in this PhD study, focused explicitly on multimodality in teaching and learning. In the focus
group interviews, too, teachers evaluated the workshop as relevant and reported that it had prompted them
to start developing their competencies in relation to multimodal language teaching. They also shared a view
of professional development as “a worthy pursuit and a means for personal growth” (2019, p. 7) but also
65
expressed some concern about the challenges they were likely to face in their own school contexts, because
of “systemic problems” (2019, p. 8) such as the lack of availability of infrastructure such as high bandwidth
WAN, school policies, and a ban on students using phones in the classroom. While the use of TPACK, with
its focus on content, pedagogy and technology distinguishes So et al. (2019) from the present study, their
study underscores the value of combining quantitative and qualitative methods for developing a richer
understanding of the context and participants. Their study also points to the need for future evaluations of
similar interventions to examine whether and how participants implement multimodal practices in their
classrooms after the intervention and how students assess the efficacy of these practices.
3.7.2. Multimodal Practice in Teacher Education
Choi and Yi (2015) examined how two students enrolled in an online teacher education in TESOL
program integrated multimodal approaches into their English teaching practice. Data were collected via the
program’s OLE and included online posts and the two final projects the participants submitted
demonstrating their multimodal teaching. One was a presentation focused on how they integrated concepts
from second language acquisition theory into their practice. The other involved designing and
implementing a unit of work in their content areas where at least two lessons had to explicitly use multiple
modes, creating a video to demonstrate their teaching practice, and providing feedback on their peers’ work
on this project. In addition to a qualitative analysis of that data, the researchers engaged in an email
discussion in which one of the students confirmed or questioned the interpretations of the work that was
submitted.
Using a constant comparative method13, Choi and Yi (2015) coded the participants’ writing for
references to how they integrated multimodality into their practice and their views on the challenges and
benefits of multimodal approaches to TESOL education. The analysis of the videos focused on identifying
and categorising the use of non-linguistic semiotic resources such as music, gesture and movement, images,
and other visuals. The findings revealed that a multimodal approach could help enhance the presentation
of a print-based text and thereby also language learners’ understanding of its subject matter as evidenced
in their ability to express what they have learned. In their reflections, the participants observed a sense of
accomplishment and increased self-esteem in English language learners (ELLs), which could contribute to
“a lasting impact on their positive academic experience” (Choi & Yi, 2015, p. 318). The reflections also
noted challenges such as various technology issues and a lack of institutional support for adopting
multimodal approaches to teaching.
The strength of Choi and Yi’s (2015) study lies in the integration of theory and practice in the
projects assigned to the participating TESOL teacher education students. Both participants were in-service
teachers and so the study reported on the implementation of a multimodal approach in an authentic
13 The constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is often used in grounded theory. Excerpts of raw data
are organised and sorted into categories by either predetermined categories, categories emerging from the data or a combination of
both. Categories are then organised, stratified, or otherwise structured in a way that allows for the formulation of theory
66
classroom context, rather than just the design of units of work and lesson plans. The reflections of the
participants in Choi and Yi’s (2015) study also suggested that their multimodal pedagogy had a positive
impact on English language learners’ (ELLs) cognitive and affective engagement. In this way, including
the “voices” of TESOL teachers offered insights that complemented those derived from the analysis of their
written work and videos of their teaching. In this PhD project, I too include the “voice” of participants
through semi-structured interviews with instructors in TESOL teacher education and the COI survey
completed by their students.
3.7.3 Multimodal Pedagogy
In a TESOL teacher education course, Li (2020) designed a qualitative study that involved
implementing a focus on ‘multimodal pedagogy’ and evaluating its impact on students’ understanding of
course concepts. The pedagogy comprised: (1) a reflective assignment in which students designed a
multimodal presentation to demonstrate their understanding of the ideas and concepts discussed in the
course, and (2) a review of multimodal instructional materials justifying how materials could be used in an
English language teaching context. Qualitative data was gathered from the students’ submissions,
especially their reflections posted to a discussion board in the subject OLE, and semi-structured interviews
with the nine participants.
All but one of the nine participants in Li’s (2020) study perceived the use of multimodal approaches
in resource development as having a positive effect on English language learners’ engagement and
motivation, while six also shared the view that the intentional integration of multimodality helped develop
learners’ creativity and higher-order cognitive skills. All participants reported that they found the
multimodal project useful for their own learning, aiding in the retention of information and deepening their
content knowledge (Li, 2020, p. 7). Additionally, the participants identified three challenges to the
implementation of a multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: the selection of topics,
unfamiliarity with digital tools for designing multimodal artefacts, and the time constraints associated with
limited institutional support. In response, Li (2020) suggested that improvements could include more peer
interaction tasks, assisting students to understand and use suitable software tools, and allowing more time
for completion of their projects. Although Li (2020) frames the study as contributing to understanding or
developing multimodal pedagogies in TESOL teacher education, Li acknowledges that the study's focus is
limited to multimodal tasks. Li concluded:
…this study enhances our understanding of the feasibility and effectiveness of
implementing multimodal tasks in TESOL teacher education [and] represents a further
effort to document pre-/in-service teachers’ perceptions of benefits and challenges of
completing multimodal assignments in their graduate coursework. Such knowledge is
essential for understanding their possible practice of multimodal pedagogy in their own
(future) language classes.
(Li, 2020, p. 11)
67
This conclusion reflects a broad understanding of ‘multimodal pedagogy’ as extending beyond
assessment tasks and raises the question of what counts as 'multimodal pedagogy in TESOL’. This question
is confounded by the terms ‘multimodal pedagogy’ and 'multiliteracy' being used interchangeably (see for
example, Cloonan [2000] which describes how multiliteracy theory influences multimodal pedagogy
development; Lotherington [2017] which outlines the development of multimodal digital literacy in
primary education contexts; Reyes-Torres & Portalés Raga [2020] which outlines a multimodal approach
to foster the multiliteracies pedagogy in the teaching of EFL and; Stein & Newfield [2006] which provides
a distinction between the two). I argue that there is value in using pedagogy to refer to (the study of the)
method and practice of teaching, and multiliteracy to competencies in the critical reading, interpretation,
and creation of multimodal texts. It is also worth noting that each concept combines a focus on
multimodality with attention to diversity and social justice, and neither is limited to digital practices or
artifacts (Yi & Angay-Crowder, 2016) or OTL alone, as “multimodality is not synonymous with the digital”
(Early et al., 2015).
3.8. Summary
In this chapter I have outlined the core concepts that underpin multimodal social semiotics and
justified this approach to multimodality as most compatible with the aims of this study. The studies
reviewed demonstrate the value of using social semiotics for examining semiotic resources in OTL and
incorporating a multimodal perspective into the COI.
Despite the paucity of empirical research into multimodality in teacher education in TESOL and
OTL more generally, we can find corollaries in studies that have focused on multimodality in physical
classrooms. This chapter reviewed as examples studies from science and mathematics classrooms (Moro et
al., 2020; Psycharis and Morgan, 2012) that are concerned with semiotic resources that differ from those in
OTL but have informed the design of the present study in two ways. First, they successfully combine social
semiotics with another framework from education, suggesting that social semiotics could be productively
integrated with the COI. Second, these studies suggest that the ways teachers employ semiotic resources in
the classroom provide a model that their students adopt in their multimodal building and demonstration of
knowledge. Such modelling is central in TESOL teacher education as instructors engage in implicit and
explicit modelling of teacher behaviour.
Emerging multimodal studies of OTL, such as Derboven et al.’s (2017) examination of instructors’
design behaviours in OLEs across different subjects, highlight the value of researching the how semiotic
resources available within institutionally provided LMSs are combined with software tools from outside
the LMS to design OLEs that best meet students’ needs. This understanding has inspired the
conceptualisation of the OLE as extending beyond the LMS or incorporating semiotic software and a range
of other semiotic resources which may be available within or imported from outside the LMS (see Figure
3.3). This chapter also reviewed a selection of the small body of research on multimodality in TESOL
teacher education. These studies reveal a need for professional development focused on multimodality and
its potential to support TESOL teachers to implement innovative pedagogies (So et al., 2019), the value of
68
integrating TESOL theory and practice in the design of multimodal tasks and incorporating TESOL
instructors’ and teacher education students’ voices (Choi and Yi, 2015; Li, 2020). They also reveal the need
for more research that might help us better define the concept of ‘multimodal pedagogy’ and its relationship
to the kinds of multimodal and other literacy skills that instructors in TESOL teacher education, their
students and English language learners rely on and need to develop in online or classroom-based teaching
and learning.
The present study builds on the research reviewed in this chapter by examining OTL and the use
of a range of semiotic resources in OLEs, rather than physical classrooms, and integrating a social semiotic
multimodal perspective into the COI, a combination that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been reported
in the literature to date. Additionally, there is a contrast between Moro et al. (2020) and Psycharis and
Morgan (2012), as studies set in different European classrooms and the present study, which examines OTL
in Australia and Korea, two different educational contexts that may shape the use of semiotic resources
online. To evaluate the intervention in my PhD project, I utilise a pre- and post- structure like So et al.
(2019) but go beyond a singular survey instrument and focus group interview, to undertake a survey of
practice encompassing a content analysis of OLEs, a modified COI survey to elicit student perspectives,
and semi-structured interviews with the participating instructors.
3.9. The Research Gap: Multimodality, TESOL, and the COI framework
The COI framework, social semiotics, and issues in teacher education in TESOL have all been examined
in research in different fields concerned with multimodality and education and therefore in isolation from
each other. There are also examples of research using the COI framework to report on teacher education
in TESOL (e.g., England, 2008; Lumsden, 2018, [see §1.1.], Shin, 2008, 2016), yet these studies prioritise
the examination of language as the main resource used to communicate in the OLE, and the COI framework
is yet to be revised from a multimodal perspective. Therefore, this study contributes to all three fields of
teacher education in TESOL, the COI and multimodality by being the first to examine the use of non-
linguistic semiotic resources in OLEs in teacher education in TESOL courses and the perspectives of
instructors as well as students on how these resources contribute to teaching, cognitive and social presence.
By shedding light on the contribution of different semiotic resources in OTL, this study could
benefit TESOL instructors, English language teachers, and learners who increasingly find themselves
engaging with OLEs both synchronously and asynchronously and who are already familiar with multimodal
practices in other aspects of their lives. Research on multimodality in teacher education in TESOL so far
has focused on the use of different modes in tasks and activities but only to the extent that this supports
language production, and to a much lesser extent on the teaching of multimodal literacy.
By examining and expanding upon previous multimodal studies in TESOL teacher education,
exploring the affordances of semiotic resources in the OLE and systematising their function while
examining and testing and problematising teaching practice (i.e., building a pedagogy), this study has the
potential to make an important contribution to the literature on TESOL, OTL, and other fields and
69
disciplines. The potential contribution is illustrated in Figure 3.4. By being the first to examine how non-
linguistic semiotic resources may indicate teaching, social, and cognitive presence and updating the
indicators of presence (e.g., Shea et al., 2010) from a multimodal perspective, this study builds on the
literature on the COI reviewed in Chapter 2.
Figure 3.3 The Research Gap: Multimodality, TESOL, & the COI
70
Chapter 4 – Theory and Practice: Integrating Social Semiotics and The
Community of Inquiry
In this chapter, I discuss my approach to the integration of a multimodal social semiotic approach,
which informs the content analysis of online learning environments (OLEs) in this study, with the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework, a means for designing, developing, and evaluating a
collaborative-constructivist educational experience online. This novel integration offers to shed light on
non-linguistic resources in OTL and may invite a reconceptualisation of the indicators of teaching, social,
and cognitive presence, as existing research has focused almost exclusively on the ways language
contributes to these presences. The integration of social semiotics and the CoI is based on the discussion
outlined below of the epistemological elements the two approaches share. In addition, I draw on the work
of Kress and van Leeuwen and employ their metaphor of “the semiotic landscape” (1996, p.35) to describe
the kinds of semiotic resources observed in an OLE.
4.1 Theory and Practice: Integrating Social Semiotics and the Community of Inquiry
In addition to TESOL-specific theory and concepts (second language acquisition, TESOL methods,
phonology, grammar, and sociolinguistics, for example), teacher education programs in TESOL draw on a
broader set of epistemologies. Among these, social constructionism, behaviourism, connectivism and
cognitivism are the most prominent. Th section highlights the parallels and compatibilities between these
epistemologies and the key concepts in multimodality and the CoI, which were introduced in Chapters 2
and 3 respectively. These relationships are summarised and exemplified in Table 4.1.
In TESOL, Farrell (2019a) distinguishes between theory and practice by considering the discipline-
specific theory that instructors must contend with as well as the pedagogical content they have to model or
“teach”. For many TESOL instructors, like the participants in this study, and indeed myself, there is often
a tension between what the theory states and how it might translate into practice, in a “real” classroom or
in the OLE (Farrell, 2012). Furthermore, not every theoretical approach will work in every learning
environment. Therefore, teaching (online or off, and across disciplines) requires a good amount of
flexibility on the part of instructors and the ability to reflect in action (Schön, 1968). However, identifying
areas of flexibility in a multimodal CoI framework allows it to be applied to teaching contexts other than
TESOL providing a much wider application for the results of the study reported here. Thus, the framework
I advance below, has a degree of generality that is potentially useful for practitioners and takes into
consideration the variables present in different teaching contexts. For each of the epistemologies described
below, I briefly consider an example of how they manifest in the OLE and their relationship to the CoI.
Table 4.1 connects these four epistemological perspectives, social constructivism, behaviourism,
cognitivism and connectivism, because they each exert influence over, and can be found within, the CoI,
multimodal social semiotics, and teacher education in TESOL. To solidify the connection between theory
and the practice, I have provided examples of teaching practice characteristic for each perspective.
71
Table 4.1 (Online) TESOL Practice: Epistemological Influences on the CoI and Social Semiotics in Teacher Education in TESOL
Framework
Epistemology Social Constructivism Behaviourism Cognitivism Connectivism
Community of Inquiry
Framework
Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1984)
as a triggering event (cognitive
presence). Learners wanting to know
more.
Vygotsky (1983/1987)
Material, procedural, and verbal
scaffolding as examples of teaching
presence, especially design and
organisation and direct instruction.
The social learning environment
maintained using pair and group work
establishing social presence: group
cohesion.
Dewey (1969)
Learning is a social experience created
by teaching, social, and cognitive
presence.
Students reflect on performance
through specific assessment teaching
presence: direct instruction.
Instructors reflect on their practice in
communities of practice teaching
presence – design and organisation,
professional development.
Repeated use of the same kinds of
semiotic resources at the same time in
each lesson contributes to making input
comprehensible (Krashen, 1985) as a
triggering event (cognitive presence).
The use of various stimuli acts as a
triggering event: cognitive presence.
Teaching presence is predicated on
learner training and helping learners to
utilise the medium effectively design &
organisation requiring repeated use of
the LMS.
Learner training also requires
diagnosing and responding to technical
concerns (direct instruction).
Motivation is impacted by all aspects of
teaching, social, and cognitive
presence
Recognising that the expression of
emotion contributes to self-regulation
and motivation (open & affective
communication, direct instruction).
Domain-specific content knowledge
and instruction using processes present
in the discipline and developed over
many years (direct instruction).
Drawing attention to metacognitive
dimensions of language learning (direct
instruction, discourse facilitation –
Teaching presence, Integration –
cognitive presence).
Critical thinking is a central concept in
the CoI ultimately resulting in deep and
meaningful learning (Garrison, 2017)
Supported by tasks that employ higher-
order thinking.
Explicitly teaching of metacognitive
strategies for learning (teaching
presence: direct instruction; cognitive
presence: integration).
Diversity of opinion elicited from
broad online sources as well as students
and acknowledged through teaching
presence: facilitating discourse.
Diversity of opinion encouraged/the
OLE made a safe space by establishing
social presence through open &
affective communication and group
cohesion.
Awareness of learning processes is
explicitly taught requiring teaching
presence: direct instruction and
cognitive presence: integration.
Critical thinking, reflection on the
learning process, and making
connections between fields, ideas and
concepts are facilitated through
establishing teaching presence. Help to
establish cognitive presence especially
integration.
Connectivism is part of the exploration,
integration, and resolution stages of the
PIM (cognitive presence).
Multimodal Social Semiotics
Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1984)
uses multiple representations of the
target language and other content
related topics. Images, video, audio,
speech, written work, and music are all
possibilities.
Use of authentic materials as part of
creating an educational experience (i.e.,
materials containing linguistic and non-
linguistic resources that occur in real
life, instead of designed for classroom
use).
Non-linguistic semiotic resources are
used as a strategy for inferencing and
identifying meaning.
Multimodal reflection
practices/communities of practice
(Wenger, 1998).
Multimodal stimuli contained within
the OLE, e.g., Video, Audio, Image,
Written, and spoken language.
The educational experience is
identified/measured by the achievement
of learning outcomes and (multimodal)
learner output (not just spoken and
written output).
Learner training involves repeated and
habit-forming exposure (Skinner, 1953)
to the same semiotic resources used to
communicate content e.g., icons for
navigation in the OLE, icons for
denoting tasks and assessments.
Semiotic software is used to create
“interactive” tasks.
The interdisciplinary nature of
Cognitivism matches that of
multimodality.
Scaffolding cognitive processes and
scaffolding the description of cognitive
processes using semiotic resources
within the OLE, e.g., Video, Audio,
Image, Written, and spoken language.
Scaffolding understanding and
implementation of metacognitive
strategies using multiple semiotic
resources within the OLE, e.g., Video,
Audio, Image, Written, and spoken
language.
Scaffolding student understanding of
diversity and opinion using semiotic
resources contained within the OLE,
e.g., Video, Audio, Image,
Written, and spoken language.
Task outputs include multimodal
(perhaps digital) artefacts (e.g., Li,
2020).
Awareness of the learning process is
scaffolded using multiple means of
representation.
72
4.1.1. Social Constructivism
Social constructivism focuses on the collaborative and interactive (i.e., social) elements of learning
which allow us to construct knowledge together, one “piece” at a time, and combine that with our previous
experiences and background knowledge. Learning is an active, reflective, personal, and social experience
(Dewey, 1969). If asked to highlight the facets of constructivism, most relevant to TESOL and teacher
education, instructors would likely highlight the influence of Vygotsky and the importance of material,
procedural and verbal scaffolding as a means of facilitating discourse within a language learning context
(Vygotsky, 1983/1987)
In the OLE, social constructivism can be seen in the material, procedural, and verbal (or written)
scaffolding strategies (Vygotsky, 1983/1987) employed by instructors in support of language production
or when providing learners with an opportunity to demonstrate understanding. For example, an image is
often used to activate learners’ prior knowledge (in combination with eliciting, either verbal or written) and
is a common TESOL method taught to pre- and in-service teachers. The use of an image (a non-linguistic
semiotic resource) makes the act of activating prior knowledge multimodal. Viewed from the perspective
of the CoI the use of an image to activate learners’ prior knowledge is an example of design and organisation,
as the instructor would have to source an appropriate an image and post it in the OLE. It is also an example
of discourse facilitation since the image could be used for eliciting information from students (teaching
presence). If the image elicits an opinion from learners, it aids open communication (social presence), and
if the image evokes an emotional response, it aids affective communication (social presence). In turn, both
open and affective communication contribute to group cohesion (social presence). The use of images is
also a means for making input comprehensible (Krashen, 1984). That is, scaffolding learners by providing
a pictorial example as they start to be exposed to new information that is just beyond their current level.
Constructivist approaches benefit from the use of authentic materials as part of creating an educational
experience online (i.e., utilising materials containing both linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic resources
that occur in the real world instead of materials designed for classroom use).
The framework advanced here draws upon classical social constructivist ideas espoused by scholars
like Dewey and Vygotsky, in line with the theory described as underpinning the CoI by Garrison et al.
(2000). These social constructivist notions are also found in the fields of teacher education in TESOL and
English language teaching – creating a synergy between theory and how it manifests in the OLE.
Behaviourist and cognitivist traditions also exert influence on the framework similar to their traditional
association with TESOL and approaches to language teaching (keeping in mind the resurgence of
behaviourism as a learner training approach brought about by increased emphasis on OTL in higher
education).
4.1.2. Behaviourism
In contrast to constructivism, as an approach to language teaching behaviourism has fallen out of
favour somewhat over the last 20 years. Behaviorist methods rely on repeated exposure to stimuli that
73
produces a response. This often involves rote learning, choral repetition, and habitual exposure to the target
language. These kinds of tasks are nowadays seen as an inefficient approach to language teaching and
learning that fails to engage learners. However, the increased prominence of technology in education has
seen language education scholars beginning to reassess behaviourism (e.g., Knox et al., 2020; Macgilchrist,
2019). A behaviourist perspective emphasises observable outcomes. Behaviourism can be a useful theory
to apply to situations where instructors need to establish the level of learners’ prior knowledge or when it
is important that students demonstrate mastery of a concept or skill.
Orientation sessions for learners to become acquainted with the LMS and other semiotic software
used in the OLE at the beginning of the teaching session may benefit from behaviourist approaches. This
kind of “learner training” involving repeated exposure to the OLE helps learners to utilise the medium
effectively (design and organisation – teaching presence) and provides instructors with an opportunity to
diagnose and respond to technical issues (design and organisation – teaching presence). Resources
accompanying orientation sessions are necessarily multimodal in nature, with instructors using step-by-
step guides with screenshots, lists, and video walkthroughs of tools (direct instruction – teaching presence).
Repeated exposure to the same semiotic resources in this way leads to the formation of ‘habits’ (Skinner,
1953).
4.1.3 Cognitivism
Cognitivism emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction to behaviourism and a theory of learning
as the result of a series of internal “cognitive processes” (Haugeland, 2010) rather than simply reactions to
various external stimuli. Emphasis is placed on the processes involved in constructing knowledge and how
learners receive, organise, store, and recall information. Within a cognitive approach, the instructor is
viewed as a guide, facilitator, or co-communicator, which is consistent with student-centred,
communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches. Moreover, the instructor helps learners not only to
understand why they are learning something but, perhaps more importantly, to organise knowledge.
Language learners are encouraged to apply metacognitive strategies and metalinguistic knowledge to their
learning, thinking about the learning process in addition to the content that is to be mastered.
Teaching learners to think critically, plan for learning, monitor their progress, and evaluate
outcomes for themselves is important where both instructors and learners have to suddenly deal with a
“crisis-driven” (Reinhold et al., 2021) change in the type of delivery, as in 2020 during the COVID19
pandemic. The inclusion of metacognitive strategies becomes critical for supporting learners’ self-regulated
learning (e.g., Hong et al., 2021) and autonomy. In practice, the use of metacognitive strategies is a learned
behaviour in online teacher education in TESOL (Zhang, L. J. & Zhang, D., 2018). There are also studies
that report on cooperative writing during online group work (e.g., Teng, 2020), teaching reading strategies
(e.g., Daguay-James & Bulusan, 2020; Thuy, 2020) and listening strategies (e.g., Emerick, 2019; Mart,
2021; Yeldham, 2021).
74
4.1.4. Connectivism
Connectivism is an epistemology that identifies networked computing and social media as tools
that provide opportunities for construction, reception, and interpretation of knowledge:
[C]onnectivism as a theory is driven by the dynamic of information flow. Students need to
understand, and be provided with, experiences in navigating and recognizing oceans of
constantly shifting and evolving information.
(Siemens, 2004, p.5).
Whereas a cognitivist approach prioritises internal cognitive processes, connectivism suggests that
knowledge building is the result of gathering information from diverse and varied sources, the identification
of what constitutes knowledge, defining and understanding connected learning, and contributing
knowledge in collaborative online settings. In doing so, “learning [moves from] internal, individualistic
activity to group, community, and even crowd activities” (Picciano, 2017, p. 174).
Connectivist approaches thus put a premium on diversity of opinion and the creation of safe spaces
online for individual learners and groups to express their opinions. This is cognate with the establishment
of social presence within the OLE. Meanwhile, making learners aware of the learning processes taking
place and explicitly drawing attention to critical thinking strategies, are examples of direct instruction
(teaching presence) and the exploration and integration stages of the practical inquiry model (PIM)
(cognitive presence). However, with Connectivist perspectives there may be an increased necessity to
scaffold student understanding of the wide variety of input they are exposed to or to take specific
instructional steps to focus, if not narrow, the scope of the content being taught concomitant to the learning
outcomes and discipline specific requirements (design and organisation – teaching presence).
4.1.5. An Integrative Model for Combining the CoI with Multimodality
The theoretical framework developed to support this study is presented in Figure 4.1. At the centre
sits the tripartite CoI framework encompassing teaching, social, and cognitive presences and their
constituent subcategories. Note that I use the representation of the CoI introduced in Figure 2.5b, showing
a far greater overlap of teaching presence with social and cognitive presence indicating how important it is
to the other two presences. At the centre of the CoI is the educational experience, the result of the
meaningful and critical reflection enabled by the establishment of teaching, social, and cognitive presence
in the OLE.
From multimodal social semiotics we take the concept of semiotic resources, and especially non-
linguistic semiotic resources, the focus of the present study. Instructors employ the semiotic resources in
the OLE based on their needs. That is, based on the content knowledge instructors need or wish to
communicate, the needs of their audience – the students – in relation to the content knowledge, and
potentially the needs of the institution they belong to. The form that this takes in the OLE is based on the
instructor’s choice of semiotic resource, but it is also influenced by context. Three factors influence the use
of semiotic resources and the establishment of teaching, social, and cognitive presence in the OLE:
75
institutional support, pedagogy, and content, and educational technology (which also includes learning
design and UI/UX factors). Each of these have an impact on the choice of semiotic resources available to
instructors in the OLE. The amount of support instructors receive from their institution
Figure 4.1 Theoretical Framework – The Multimodal Community of Inquiry
in terms of workload, time, and technical support, their understanding and beliefs in the pedagogy and the
nature of knowledge, and the educational technology and tools being used, all influence the final
manifestation of semiotic resources in the OLE.
Educational technology is often thought of in terms of the engagement it engenders among learners.
However, “engagement” hides the complex interactions taking place when an instructor chooses to use H5P
(Joubel, 2022), for example, to create tasks in their OLE. What sometimes occurs is that the use of
educational technology is championed in the service of student “engagement” and acknowledged times, for
the sake of using new technology:
Talks in TESOL conferences, [encourage] the use of iPads, films, digital storytelling,
interactive whiteboards, Google Maps and so many other digital media. It is indeed
exciting the way ICT has been embraced by the ELT community, as a useful tool that
promotes engagement and new learning opportunities. But, although much attention has
been given to digital tools which produce mainly visual media, visual literacy is largely
ignored in TESOL conferences, often subsumed under the focus on digital literacies,
revealing the overall misinterpretation of its changing role in the ELT field.
(Karastathi, 2016, Multimodality and ELT section)
76
As teacher educator, English teacher and museologist Sylvia Karastathi noted, the emphasis on visual, ICT
and educational technology risks missing the point altogether when it comes to examining educational
technology. Instead, the theoretical framework developed in this study, technology is conceived as
providing opportunities for multimodal meaning creation so long as its use is purposeful, i.e., an educational
technology needs to have a defined and achievable outcome behind its use.
The importance of layout, design, user interface (UI) and overall user experience (UX) of consumer
websites has garnered considerable attention from researchers over the last two decades (e.g., Azar, 2021;
Kompaniets & Chemerys, 2019; Zhang, 2021). This focus has resulted in various ways of analysing UI/UX,
and a set of principles for design of UI and UX closely aligned to web standards and accessibility
requirements often referred to as web usability heuristics (e.g., Nielsen, 2020). Usability is distinguished
from usefulness (i.e., the TAM. See §2.1.1.) by Nielsen (2012) and is expanded upon by Vlasenko et al.
(2021, p. 185) who note that the usability of an educational website, or OLE, encompasses not only
usefulness, or being able to be used, but also effectiveness – efficacy and satisfaction. UI and UX design
are predicated on the appropriate14 implementation through learning design of a handful of semiotic
resources, namely typeface, colour, structure and navigation, the use of icons, the use of video, and the use
of images (Vlasenko et al., 2021, p. 191) – essentially those semiotic resources focused on in the research
presented in this thesis.
4.2 Defining the Semiotic Landscape of the OLE
A “semiotic landscape” is the semiotic context that surrounds the resources used by sign makers
and includes those socio-cultural influences that impact their choices in making meaning. The signs and
semiotic resources contained in the OLE are all features of a semiotic landscape. Each semiotic resource
has a history as a whole and contains individual features that have their own histories (Kress & van Leeuwen,
1996, p. 35) and range of semiotic practices associated with it. Deeply engrained within the definitions
outlined here are the classical distinctions between the symbol, the index, and the icon (Peirce, 1940).
However, I am not setting out to redefine these or the theory developed in the literature on social semiotics.
Instead, the present study purposefully stops at the identification, categorisation, and enumeration of a
specific set of semiotic resources, how they are exploited by instructors (RQ1), how they are perceived by
students, and the potential of these semiotic resources to be employed in ways that increase the level of CoI
presences in the OLE (RQ2).
To expand the metaphor of the semiotic landscape (which Kress and van Leeuwen warn against
[1996, p. 35]) what is the semiotic landscape of the OLE built on? What is the terra firma on which all the
different semiotic features sit? The other significant influence on this study provided by Derboven et al.
(2017) (see § 3.6.1.) is the conceptualisation of the OLE vis-à-vis the LMS used here. OLE and LMS are
14 cf. ISO 9241-210:2019. This standard defines system usability as the extent to which a system, a product or a service can be
used by certain users for achieving certain goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a certain context of its usage
(International Organization for Standardization, [ISO], 2019).
77
sometimes used synonymously, but in practice the OLE can span numerous platforms, not just the LMS.
Whether Google Classroom or Moodle, the LMS is the semiotic software that enables instructors to create,
or otherwise “build” their OLE. The OLE can sit entirely within the LMS using the specific and more
general communicative tools referred to by Derboven et al. (2017). However, instructors also use other
web-based tools outside of the LMS. As a result, the OLE extends beyond the LMS and on to the internet.
There may also be an intermediate space that is incorporated into an OLE – not in the LMS, but still within
an institution’s “walled garden” (on a university’s servers). These might include subject or discipline
specific software or cloud spaces, such as student email. To illustrate this, I adapt Derboven’s et al. (2017,
p. 30) diagram showing functionality migration, to illustrate that the OLE can encompass specific tools in
the LMS, more general communicative tools in the LMS, discipline specific and institutional tools and
spaces and tools outside of the OLE on the internet. Conceivably, we could also see an OLE established
without a dedicated LMS completely on the internet
Figure 4.2 The OLE Incorporating the LMS
Software is not usually considered a text in applied linguistics (Zhao et al., 2014) or TESOL. Rather,
it is often viewed as a means to an end, facilitating language production among students and any meaning
that arises from its use is a result of language rather than the software. This is, of course, antithetical to the
position advanced in this thesis. The LMS can provide opportunities for meaning-making along with the
various semiotic resources contained therein. Like the examination of PowerPoint (Zhao et al., 2014), this
78
study also begins data collection by establishing what semiotic resources are available within LMS (see
§5.5.5.). Unlike Zhao et al. (2014), which then considered how semiotic resources are presented in the
software interface, I undertake other qualitative data gathering (see §5.5.). With reference to the present
study, Zhao et al. (2014) demonstrates that the use of a social semiotic approach for analysis is appropriate
within semiotic software such as PowerPoint or an LMS like Google Classroom or Moodle. Such
approaches are applicable to semiotic resources which can be accounted for and analysed in terms of their
contribution to meaning-making.
Multimodal and semiotic practices beyond those used in the OLE to support instructors in fields
other than TESOL may form the basis for future studies (see: Chapter 10 – Implications, Limitations, and
Future Research). Definitions of the different semiotic resources also help to identify the constraints
imposed on instructors by their respective LMSs. To achieve this, I have identified eight categories of
semiotic resources based on definitions present and broadly accepted in the literature, e.g., Stöckl (2005)
for typography. Each of the semiotic resources detailed here has different affordances for and limitations
on making meaning
4.2.1. Text-as-complex-sign
The following section describes individual semiotic resources that can work individually or in
ensembles to create a sign within a text (see § 3.4.1.). But what of the text as a whole? Is a text like an OLE
a sign in and of itself, conveying a meaning distinct from how it is being used? Ultimately, we could
examine the OLEs described in this study in isolation, treating each as a complex-sign. Bezemer and Kress
(2008) conceptualise a text-as-complex-sign, as being a specific kind of sign that has an unlimited number
of potential readings (in number) but also a very constrained number of readings, semantically speaking.
This means that, as a complex sign, we could analyse an OLE looking to understand how the choice of
semiotic resources fits the purpose of the author or sign maker. This is likely to provide a sense of instructors’
understanding of their audience (students) and how their beliefs and what they value in terms of pedagogy
are reflected in the OLE. However, like Bezemer and Kress, this study is more interested in revealing the
potentials, uses, and constraints of the “stuff” (2008, p. 171) used in the OLE i.e., the semiotic resources.
In addition, I contend that the mixed methods approach described in the next chapter is likely to reveal
instructors’ beliefs about pedagogy as well as the perceptions of students and identify, categorise, and
enumerate semiotic resources manifest in the OLE.
4.2.2. Typography
Typography relates to how we conceive (or perceive) the visual characteristics of written language.
Weight, expansion, slope, curvature, connectivity, orientation, and regularity are all aspects of typography
that have been identified as having meaning potential (van Leeuwen, 2005, 2006). Van Leeuwen worked
with a narrow definition of typography, whereas Stöckl (2005) provides a four-part grammar to describe
typography beyond font types, and argues that, just as there is no speech without voice qualities such as
tone and intonation, so too there is no written document without typographic qualities. The Stöcklian
79
grammar divides typography into four domains representing typographic building blocks (Stöckl, 2005, p.
82) (units of written text) of varying size:
• Microtypography – describes the design of individual fonts or typefaces and other individual
graphical signs such as punctuation and includes colour. Seldom do instructors have control over
microtypography, as defaults are set at the LMS level. If a default is not used, a typeface is often
chosen to be in line with the branding of the institution. Alternatively, the default typeface is chosen
by the LMS developer. Google Classroom, for example, uses the Roboto Bold font and its
derivatives (Google, 2015).
• Mesotypography defines how type, that is, individual letters, words, and sentences, are organised
on the page or the screen, and refers to kerning, the space between letters, word spacing, line
spacing, the space between lines of text, alignment, centre, left, right or justified, and font mixing,
the simultaneous use of multiple typefaces across the page15.
• Macrotypography articulates the overall graphic structure of a document. This includes how
blocks of text are organised into paragraphs and indentations (Jewitt and Stöckl, n.d.), the use of
font styles such as bold or italics to convey emphasis and lists (numbered and bulleted), tables,
charts, footnotes, and marginalia.
• Paratypography refers to the techniques, materials and instruments employed in making graphical
signs. For writing, this may be instruments such as ink, paint, and pencil, and how they are applied
to surfaces such as paper, canvas, or tile. In an OLE, the underlying code (HTML and CSS for the
most part) is what allows typography to be rendered on a screen. However, I am not considering
the para-typography of the OLE for the most part since instructors are unlikely to be manipulating
the LMS (for example, writing posts in HTML) to such an extent.
Instructors seldom have complete control over how typography is represented within their OLE or
may be limited in their access to edit code as a result of the LMS design or because of decisions made at
the institutional level. Google Classroom, for example, provides no native, rich text-editing function to
instructors posting to the OLE16. The Stöcklian grammar of typography (Stöckl, 2005) is useful for this
study because it is comprehensive, outlining typography at the micro, meso, macro and paratypography
levels. As a result, these designations describe most typographical semiotic resources available to
instructors in their respective OLEs. Table 4.2 above outlines key distinctions in the Stöcklian grammar,
which forms the basis of the coding of typography in the content analysis of OLEs in this study (see §5.5.5.1.
and Table 5.1a).
15 Mesotypography also relates to type direction, e.g., left to right for English and Korean. However, Arabic-speaking contexts
might employ a right to left direction, for example.
16 However, instructors with knowledge of markdown – a computing language allowing for formatting of text in a plain text-text
editor – can take advantage of minimal typographic semiotic resources or of font-generating websites to copy and paste formatted
text into their posts in Google Classroom. .sǝɔɐⅎǝdʎʇ pǝsᴉɔᴉʅɐʇᴉ ɹo pʅoq oʇ pǝʇɔᴉɹʇsǝɹ ǝq ʇ╻upǝǝu ʎɥdɐɹƃodʎʇ sᴉɥꓕ
80
Table 4.2 A Grammar of Typography based on Stöckl (2005)
Domain
Typographic Element
Properties
Microtypography
Typeface
Type size
Colour
Serif, sans serif fonts e.g., Times New Roman
versus Montserrat.
e.g., 12pt.
Black, white, other colours.
Mesotypography
Line spacing
Alignment
Font mixing
Space between lines of text.
Centre, left, right, justified.
The use of more than one typeface.
Macrotypography
Paragraphing
Ordered (numbered) and
unordered (bulleted)
lists
Capital letters
Typographic emphasis
Ornamentation devices
Text and graphic image
assemblage
The number or size of text blocks and the
distance between them.
The use of ornamental capital letters, colours.
Bold, italic, and underlined type.
Headline hierarchies, tables and charts, and
footnotes.
Image – caption relationship.
Paratypography
Quality of medium –
paper quality
Instruments used
Thickness, surface characteristics etc.
Pen, paper, ink, paint.
4.2.3. Icons and Emoji
In the present study, emoji is examined together with icons as both are pictographic resources.
Icons in OLEs are a means for instructors to communicate via a semiotic resource that resembles, alludes
to, or is learned and accepted as representing something. In TESOL research from the late 20th Century,
icons are often mentioned in passing when describing interactive language teaching resources (e.g., Eason
& Yates, 1996; Karn, 1996). More recently, the communicative and navigation potential of icons has been
recognised (e.g., De Costa, 2010; bin Rosawi, 2022). The term “icon” is multidiscursive, with different
meanings ascribed to it in linguistics, semiotics, computing, art, religion, history, and various other fields.
In a study that brings together theory and practice from linguistics, education and multimodality, “icon”
requires a brief justification and definition. The Peircean definition of icon states that an icon has a physical
resemblance to the thing being represented (Peirce, 1955). A photograph is a good example of an icon, as
it resembles what it represents. However, a photograph “has properties in common with its object and is
therefore an icon; it is […] influenced by its object and is therefore an index; and lastly, it requires a learned
process of "reading" to understand it, and is therefore a symbol” (Johansen, 1988, p. 499). This
contradiction is cited in Huening (n.d.) as evidence of the success of Peirce’s (1955) trichotomy of signs,
rather than a failure.
On the other hand, as Figure 4.3. illustrates, icons in computer environments can be iconic in the
Peircean sense, serve as an index when showing evidence of something but not representing it directly, or
a symbol, where the icon has does not resemble the appearance of what it represents yet its widespread use
and cultural acceptance support people in understanding what is being represented.
81
Figure 4.3 Examples of Icon, Index, Symbol in Computing
Mouse (Dell, 2022)
Icon
Resembles the thing being
represented.
(photograph)
Save (Google, 2022)
Index
Evidence of or allusion to
what is being represented
Hyperlink (Microsoft, 2022)
Symbol
No resemblance, socio-
culturally learned/defined
meaning
Note. Here, an icon (in the computing sense) in an OLE usually has more in common with an index.
However, it is important to note that icons are proof of the socio-cultural way in which semiotic resources
are defined. Take, for example, the sign used to indicate to users that they can save a document, e.g., in a
word processing application: “”. In the early years of computing, this sign acted as an icon – the floppy
disc being the exact thing users would save data to. Nowadays, it acts as an index for those of us who are
old enough to remember a floppy disc. For younger users, the floppy disc sign is a symbol with no
resemblance whatsoever to the process of saving a document.
To help describe emoji, the present study draws on The Full Emoji List, v.13.1 (Unicode
Consortium, 2021) and specifically uses The Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) short names to
describe individual emoji characters. Although The Full Emoji List uses American English, other variants
of English may have different keywords. Here, I use Australian English; see for example, (🛗) Elevator
(AmE) versus (🛗) Lift (Aus.Eng).
Emoji are the only non-linguistic semiotic resource mentioned in the original indicators of presence
developed by Shea et al. (2010) (see Appendix B). In the literature on the CoI, emojis are viewed as
contributing to social presence as it is assumed their role is to convey emotion. Studies of digital
communication, however, highlight the capacity of emoji to support other functions beyond emotion
(Danesi, 2017; Herring & Dainas, 2017).
In social media, emoji can fulfil phatic and emotive functions often conveying someone’s stance
on an issue or topic and thus helping create interpersonal alignments such as agreement or disagreement
with what someone has said/written (Logi & Zappavigna, 2021). The conclusions put forward by Logi and
Zappavigna’s (2021) are congruent with elements of the CoI. For example, such use of emoji can be
interpreted as an indicator of discourse facilitation (teaching presence). “Interpersonal alignment” (Logi &
Zappavigna, 2021) is synonymous with group cohesion (social presence) (Garrison et al., 2000). Formal
learning spaces such as OLEs may not invite frequent use of emoji. However, I have included emoji in the
analysis of OLEs due to the potential of this semiotic resource to contribute to the CoI presences.
4.2.4. Images
In this study, an image refers to photographs, line drawings or illustrations, figures, and
charts/graphs contained within the OLE. This is a deliberately simplified definition that combines at least
four very different kinds of image. While a photograph is both visually and semiotically very different from
a line drawing, and the possibility of meanings conveyed by each is infinite, it is likely that an image will
82
only serve a limited number of functions in the OLE – functions related to teacher education or professional
developed focused on how to interact with or otherwise use the OLE. Put another way, the vast majority of
TESOL instructors and English language teachers use images in their classrooms (Donaghy & Xerri, 2017).
In a physical classroom, we might observe wallcharts, examples of student work, coursebooks containing
images, and an instructor’s use of images within a presentation. The classroom limits the number of
functions each image serves within that context. In this respect the OLE is similar. Therefore, the present
study concerns itself less with exactly what the images in the OLE represent and more with the frequency
with which they appear and students’ perceptions of the impact of images on each CoI presence. Also of
interest is the broader function semiotic resources fulfil in the OLE. As with other semiotic resources, the
function of an image in the OLE can be distilled into one of four possibilities – instructional, affective,
navigational, and aesthetic.
4.2.5. Opportunities for Discussion
Opportunities for discussion manifest differently in the OLE depending on the LMS that instructors
employ. Discussion is characterised by posts and nested replies in Google Classroom, discussion forum
threads in Moodle, and “comments” in Notion (the LMS used in the professional development intervention
conducted in this study and described in §8.2.1.1.). A discussion provides a platform where meaning-
makers select from resources the platform makes available (e.g., fonts, colour, hyperlinks) as well as import
semiotic artefacts from outside the OLE such as images or videos to communicate their meaning. It thus
fits in with Djonov & van Leeuwen’s (2017) definition of semiotic software as a semiotic artefact (see
§3.4.2.3.).
Discussion is counted as a semiotic resource in this study as it plays a pivotal role in OTL. It allows
instructors to facilitate discourse and provide direct instruction (teaching presence), provides a space where
open communication and affective communication can take place (social presence), and enables students
to collaborate on tasks – exploring information and co-constructing knowledge with peers (cognitive
presence) together (social presence) (e.g., Khine & Santos, 2014). Within the present study, the nature of
specific discussion interactions within the OLE are not examined but opportunities for discussion are
acknowledged as an important semiotic resource.
4.2.6. Hyperlinks
Hyperlinks, or just “links”, are seemingly innocuous but are fundamental to making meaningful
connections between content, supporting logical organisation, navigation, and interpretation of content
within the OLE (Djonov, 2007, 2008). The categorisation of hyperlinks in this study is based on a simple
distinction between internal and external hyperlinks in websites. In the OLE, internal hyperlinks connect
pages within the same OLE. External links take users to information and resources outside of the OLE.
Links are an important indicator of multiple presences. Links can be a useful means for scaffolding
students’ progression through a topic, having them look at content and resources in a specific order (design
& organisation, teaching presence). Links are also evidence of instructors pointing students to additional
83
information helping them explore concepts beyond the content being discussed (cognitive presence).
Additionally, links often form the basis of learning analytics for an institution interested in examining the
usage patterns and trends of students in the LMS: “When [links are] created ineffectively, users (students)
are likely to miss or deem them as unimportant resulting in missing crucial content or information” (The
University of Wollongong, 2022)
4.2.7. Video
Like Burn and Parker (2001) who coined the term ‘kineiconic’ to describe moving images without
privileging one kind of moving image over another (e.g., film versus animation), I examine the use of
“video” in OLEs without distinguishing between different types. Like images (§4.2.4. above) video is
already widely used within the face-to-face TESOL classroom. The use of video is considerable, doing
double duty as both a means of activating student schema and as a source of authentic language used in
receptive skills development. The ability of both instructors and students to create video (Rice Starr &
Spencer, 2005; Graham, 2006, 2008) and its use as a multimodal practice outside the classroom, for
example in social media, is also a factor in the increased use of video. In some ways, the use of video is
made easier in the OLE versus the face-to-face classroom without the need for equipment like projectors
and students able to view video on their own devices. I distinguish between two types of videos in the OLEs
examined here – internal video, created by instructors (and students) and uploaded to the OLE, and external
video, video created by a third party but shared via the OLE. Usually, these kinds of external videos are
embedded in-line with content in the OLE but access to them may also be enabled through a hyperlink. As
with hyperlinks (§4.2.6.), video can form the basis for investigating usage patterns in the LMS via learning
analytics.
From a TESOL perspective, we also see examples in the literature reporting video being used as a
reflective practice tool among teachers (Hamel, Viau-Guay & Nkuyubwatsi, 2019). In addition, video is
reported as being useful in providing models or examples in teacher education more broadly, regardless of
an individual program’s aims (Hixon & So, 2009; Brunvand, 2010; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014; Gaudin &
Charliès, 2015). While most instructors are not expected to develop professional video production skills,
their knowledge of the multimodal affordances of video is increasingly necessary, given its ubiquity. One
of the key characteristics of video that this study seeks to identify is how much video in the OLE is created
by participants in the OLE (both instructor and students) versus video that is sourced elsewhere. Video has
the ability to impact the CoI presences as arguably one of the most visceral of semiotic resources, potentially
incorporating moving image, sound, still images, music, sound effects, and animation. Video can operate
as a means for open and affective communication (social presence) between members of an OLE invoking
affective (emotional) responses in viewers, and a triggering event (cognitive presence) by activating schema.
4.2.8. Audio
Audio has a long history of use in language teaching, stretching as far back as the use of Edison
cylinders in 1899. Audio has been integrated into numerous popular approaches in TESOL since then; and
84
while the “Free Edison phonograph” has disappeared along with the Rosenthal Method of Practical
Linguistry of the early 20th century, there is no mistaking these as the antecedents of what we would refer
to as a “language laboratory” today. This progression of language labs is illustrated in Figure 3.4. Audio
strips away some of the modalities present in a video text (namely, the visual ones) but may increase the
prominence of others such as intensity, pitch, and pitch variation (intonation) (Bezemer & Blommaert, n.d.).
Pre-recorded audio offers a means of including speech in the OLE. This makes it uniquely placed in
language teaching and language teacher education in terms of the ability to distribute accurate examples
and models of different kinds of speech acts, whether it be providing instructions to an assessment task or
modelling pronunciation, for example.
In this thesis, audio refers to pre-recorded audio files uploaded or otherwise accessible to students
in the OLE. This study seeks to identify whether and what kind of audio is employed in OLEs: Audio
recorded and uploaded to the OLE by instructors, or external audio added to the OLE by the instructor from
external sources. Like photography and video before it, access to high-quality equipment and software has
made the creation of audio by instructors fairly easy.
Figure 4.4 Language Laboratories Through the Ages: Audio in the OLE
Edison's phonograph was
advertised by Rosenthal in
Harper’s Magazine, 1899
(Joseph, 2015).
HM King Charles III (Then HRH
The Prince of Wales) in a
language laboratory at the
University College of Wales at
Aberystwyth, 1969 (Time, PA,
Getty).
Modern language laboratory,
Heriot Watt University, Scotland,
2020 (JGM, 2022).
4.2.9. Semiotic Software
Another important resource in OTL is semiotic software, which has been defined simply as
“software for making meaning” (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018; Zhao, Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2014).
Less simply, semiotic software is a type of semiotic resource that Djonov & Van Leeuwen (2018) define
as a “semiotic artefact”, as it offers users access to “a range of different semiotic resources and incorporates
and represents knowledge about what constitutes effective use of these resources in particular contexts”
(Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018, p. 567). By this definition, the software that enables the LMS is an example
of semiotic software in the same way that underlying code makes Facebook (Meta, 2022) semiotic software.
However, for the present study, I assume that the LMS is maintained by someone other than the instructor
(which is the case in most higher education contexts – usually an institution’s IT department) and that the
instructor’s influence on how it is deployed is minimal. Instead, the kinds of semiotic software contained
within OLEs are likely to be designed specifically for use in an educational context. Pedagogical semiotic
85
software enables instructors to create multimodal and interactive tasks that elicit a multimodal response
from students. Common examples include H5P (Joubel, 2022), VoiceThread (VoiceThread LLC, 2021),
Echo360 (Echo360 Inc., 2022) and Padlet (Wallwisher Inc., 2021).
4.2.9. Semiotic Software
Another important resource in OTL is semiotic software, which has been defined simply as
“software for making meaning” (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018; Zhao, Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2014).
Less simply, semiotic software is a type of semiotic resource that Djonov & Van Leeuwen (2018) define
as a “semiotic artefact”, as it offers users access to “a range of different semiotic resources and incorporates
and represents knowledge about what constitutes effective use of these resources in particular contexts”
(Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2018, p. 567). By this definition, the software that enables the LMS is an example
of semiotic software in the same way that underlying code makes Facebook (Meta, 2022) semiotic software.
However, for the present study, I assume that the LMS is maintained by someone other than the instructor
(which is the case in most higher education contexts – usually an institution’s IT department) and that the
instructor’s influence on how it is deployed is minimal. Instead, the kinds of semiotic software contained
within OLEs are likely to be designed specifically for use in an educational context. Pedagogical semiotic
software enables instructors to create multimodal and interactive tasks that elicit a multimodal response
from students. Common examples include H5P (Joubel, 2022), VoiceThread (VoiceThread LLC, 2021),
Echo360 (Echo360 Inc., 2022) and Padlet (Wallwisher Inc., 2021).
4.3. Semiotic Resource Function
The concept of function in this study was discussed in the semi-structured interviews with
instructor-participants. Discussion around function stemmed from asking instructors to determine which
semiotic resources they used in the OLE and why and how they were used (see Appendix C- checklist
question). The “function” of a semiotic resource is important because it speaks to how instructors exploit
semiotic resources in their OLE (RQ1). Additionally, the discussion of “function” came from the instructor-
participants and emerged over the course of the study. It is also a good example of the benefit of seeking
to include participants’ voices in research. A summary of how instructors described function is reported in
Table 4.3 alongside examples from the various OLEs examined in this study.
4.4. Summary
This chapter has described the theoretical framework that underpins this study. In combining the
CoI and social semiotics, there is the potential to support instructors’ understanding of both fields and how
they might implement these in their own contexts. There is also an opportunity to consider what kinds of
professional development are best suited to aiding instructors in making the connection between the CoI
and social semiotics
We can see in Figure 4.1 that there are also several other factors with implications for practice that
feature as influences on the framework. Among them, how instructors apply educational technology in their
practice is important in terms of working towards a multimodal pedagogy for TESOL (and OTL in general)
86
that is based on a conceptualisation of that pedagogy rather than one that focuses solely on multimodal
output by students. In addition, the influence of thinking on UI/UX in the literature synergises best with
multimodality. This is because the implementation of a user interface, in an OLE for example, is based on
only a small number of semiotic resources.
Those semiotic resources make up the semiotic landscape of the OLE. The second part of this
chapter has essentially defined, and where appropriate, provided examples of the kinds of semiotic
resources that this study seeks to identify, categorise, and enumerate within the OLEs it examines. The
definitions advanced here are important for establishing what resources are present, revealing students’
perceptions of them in terms of the CoI presences, and because certain resources will feature in the
professional development intervention based on the survey of practice in the pre-intervention stage of the
study.
87
Table 4.3 Functions of Semiotics in the OLE Functions
Function
Definition
Example
Instructional
Pertaining to subject-matter content in the OLE.
Semiotic resources with a primarily instructional function are used to
communicate subject- or discipline-specific information or support
students in building new knowledge and understanding about the
content or practice.
Here, a video created by Ben (Class D) scaffolds students’
understanding of assessment task 1 by providing a narrated
walkthrough of the components of the assessment task.
(Anonymised).
Discoursal/affective
Pertaining to emotion throughout the OLE.
Semiotic resources that function discoursally or affectively are used
to elicit a discussion from students (discourse) or provoke an
emotional response.
This image accompanies a discussion post describing a reflection task
eliciting students’ thoughts, experiences, and reflections on a critical
incident in their teaching context. A screengrab from a news report
from the United States. The term “Crisis”, the smeared marker (or
possibly blood?) and the torn page from a notebook establish a sense
of urgency and criticality. Note too that semiotic resources like this
image work well as triggering events (cognitive presence)
Reflecting on critical incidents
88
Aesthetic
Pertaining to the appearance of the OLE.
Semiotic resources that function aesthetically are used by instructors
because they add something visually pleasing to the OLE or a
component therein.
Here, the default banner image at the top of the Moodle LMS serves a
mostly aesthetic function with no connection to the subject content or
the subject learning outcomes
(Anonymised).
Navigational
Pertaining to moving to different parts of the OLE.
Semiotic resources with a primarily navigational function are used by
instructors to provide students with information about where they are
in the OLE and to prompt students to move to another part of the
OLE or outside of the OLE, e.g., the internet.
Note: Image From WEYI (2022) State lawmaker proposing new critical incident maps for schools in Michigan. https://nbc25news.com/news/local/state-lawmaker-proposing-new-critical-incident-maps-for-
schools-in-michigan
89
Chapter 5 – Methodology
In previous chapters, I have introduced the context of the study (Chapter 1), reviewed the literature
pertaining to the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000) (Chapter 2), multimodal
social semiotics (Chapter 3), described the online learning environment (OLE) as a ‘semiotic landscape’
(Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996) and noted that social semiotic multimodality is both a lens through which
we can view and analyse communication in the OLE and the means or collection of tools by which
communication can be analysed. That multimodal approaches are capable of being both a point of view and
provide the practical means for analysis of data presaged the presentation of my theoretical framework
(Chapter 4). By bringing together the CoI framework and social semiotics I am able to analyse and focus
on a specific and well-defined set of semiotic resources, rather than much broader semiotic practices that
might take place in the OLE. At the end of my literature review, I brought attention to the gap that I consider
exists in the research focused on online teaching and learning (OTL), especially as it applies to teacher
education in TESOL. In this chapter, I make that gap explicit in relation to each of my research questions.
I then outline the research design and underlying methodology, explaining the epistemological reasons
behind employing a mixed methods approach to investigating OTL and TESOL. The second part of this
chapter describes the operationalisation of the study, i.e., the study’s data collection methods, participants,
and methods of analysis, and address validity and reliability. In this chapter, I introduce my research
questions, RQ1 and RQ2, and describe the research design I have devised to address them. I also explore
the methodological foundation for this study and justify the choice of a mixed methods approach by
considering which data sets the different methods I employ will yield, and how I am attending to validity
and reliability in my research. Finally, I outline how the data gathered in each stage of the study will be
analysed.
5.1. Aims, Rationale, and Outcomes
This study sits at the intersection of social semiotic multimodal approaches to teacher education in
TESOL and the use of the CoI framework in the design and development of an OLE, as well as the
subsequent evaluation of the OLE. However, as I noted above, aspects of social constructivism,
behaviourism, communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches, CALL theory, and educational design
theory (e.g., USC, 2014) all inform this study and its methodology. The present study aims to answer the
two research questions described in the next section of this chapter but in doing so suggests an update to
the indicators of teaching, social, and cognitive presence that encompasses the multiple ways in which
meaning is communicated in the OLE, namely those non-linguistic semiotic resources described in the
previous chapter. In doing so, I suggest that now, or at least some time in the near-term, is an appropriate
time, post COVID-19, to start to formalise a multimodal pedagogy for online teacher education in TESOL,
and by extension English language teaching online (or CALL). Such a pedagogy should centre on
instructor’s beliefs and conceptualisations of “good practice in OTL”, be student-centred, and look to the
90
organisation and dissemination of multimodal knowledge and understanding (including so-called
multiliteracies) rather than focusing on multimodal production and artefacts. Finally, this study aims to
make a practical contribution to instructor’s professional development through the delivery of a
professional development intervention and considering ways the CoI framework can be used for reflective
practice in addition to design and evaluation of OLEs.
The present study is motivated by the desire to provide support to online TESOL instructors to
increase teaching, social, and cognitive presence in their OTL through understanding and using various
semiotic resources. A further rationale comes from the possibility that the indicators of presence laid out in
the CoI (e.g., Shea et al., 2010) might be expanded to incorporate multimodal indicators of presence as a
result of the present study. RQ1 asks, what semiotic resources do online TESOL instructors use? We know
that linguistic resources such as written language (or in the OLE, typed language) are present. However, I
have noted that the almost exclusive reliance on language-based resources by instructors and researchers is
yet to be fully examined in the literature. I am also seeking to understand how students perceive the use of
semiotic resources in relation to the CoI presences.
5.2. Research Questions
This study is designed to address two interrelated questions. The first is as follows:
RQ1 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?
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?
The data gathered in response to RQ1 influence the design, development and delivery of the intervention
which is the focus of RQ2. The intervention takes into account the circumstances of the instructor-
participants (without identifying them) and the experiences of their students when tailoring a professional
development course for them. However, to achieve this,
5.3. Research Design
The research design describes how, when and where data was collected and analysed (Parahoo,
1997, p. 142) in Neither RQ1 nor RQ2 can be answered by quantitative or qualitative approaches alone.
My research design and methodology use methods that are appropriate for collecting and analysing both
qualitative and quantitative data. Therefor this study was designed to be conducted over three stages. The
first stage was a survey of practice, encompassing content analysis of OLEs, semi-structured interviews,
and the CoI survey. The second stage saw the delivery of a professional development intervention online
to instructor participants. This was designed based on the results of the content analyses of OLEs semi-
structured interviews with instructors and the CoI survey instrument, that is, partly in response to RQ1
outlined above. Finally, in the third stage, a post-intervention survey of practice was employing the same
methods as the first stage. In the following section, I describe and justify each of the methods employed in
91
the study. The sequence in which the research occurs, and a diagrammatic representation of the design
follow in Figure 5.1.
5.3.1. Pre-intervention Stage
I have termed the pre-intervention stage of the study an initial survey of practice designed to capture
instructor participants’ online teaching practice at a certain point of time. In order to capture a full, accurate
picture of instructor practice, and in line with the mixed methods approach described later in this chapter,
the initial survey of practice employs three methods:
• A two-part content analysis of instructors’ OLEs. The first part of the content analysis identifies
and enumerates the semiotic resources in OLEs, recording the frequency with which they appear.
The second part of the content analysis categorises the semiotic resources according to the function
they serve in the OLE, and how they are potentially indicators of social, cognitive, and teaching
presence.
• Semi-structured interviews with instructor-participants designed to elicit biographical
information, OTL experience, awareness of CoI presences (even if implicit), and awareness of their
own use of semiotic resources.
• Administration of the Community of Inquiry Survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008) to student-
participants which measures their perceptions of teaching, social., and cognitive presence
established in the OLEs, and which resources contribute to teaching, social, and cognitive presence.
5.3.2. Professional Development Intervention
The second stage of the study involves the design, development, and delivery of an asynchronous, online
professional development program to instructor-participants based on the results of the first stage addresses
the most prominent themes or challenges instructors encounter in their practice. In addition to the design,
development, and delivery of the intervention, instructor-participants will also complete the CoI survey
providing a further data set from an example of OTL.
5.3.3. Post-intervention stage
The post-interventions stage is a second survey of practice, replicating the first and encompasses:
• A two-part content analysis of instructors’ OLEs identifying, enumerating, and categorising
semiotic resources present.
• Semi-structured interviews with instructor-participants, based on the results of the pre-intervention
and intervention stages of the study designed to elicit information about instructors’ experience of
the professional development intervention, how they have implemented resources in their OLEs,
and discuss any potential, uptake of the content of the intervention demonstrated by changes in
resource use observed during content analyses.
• Administration of CoI Survey Instrument measuring students’ perception of semiotic resources and
presences.
92
Figure 5.1 Research Design
93
5.4. Methodology
5.4.1. Mixed Methods: Quantitative Vs. Qualitative
As outlined in the previous section, a number of instruments, and methods can be employed to
gather qualitative and quantitative data. Mixed methods research (MMR) is more than just the collection,
analysis and combination of qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) data. Employing an MMR
approach means viewing the organisation, categorisation and application of knowledge as complex, having
multiple forms and influenced by many factors. The diversity of human interaction in an OLE and related
phenomena, such as the semiotic resources used in the OLE and what they afford instructors (and learners),
is too complex to be understood by, for example, only examining the frequency of an event or administering
a survey (QUAN) or only talking to the instructors in interviews (QUAL) (cf. Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010).
MMR also has a socio-political element to it (Greene, 2010; Creswell, 2010). This manifests in researchers
addressing the “concerns and problems of the real-world contexts within which they work” (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2010, p. 5). This is the case in the present study, where the combination of QUAN and QUAL
is used to show how one data set complements, builds on, and even corroborates another, to address research
questions that stem from real-world problems, and in this instance, to provide support to online TESOL
instructors.
The connection between QUAL and QUANT cannot be made until the methods – the procedures
used for the collection and analysis of data – are framed by the philosophical views (epistemology) and
theoretical positions (theory) appropriate to the context (Creswell, 2009). Well-designed and conducted
Semi-structured interviews, the CoI survey instrument, and the use of the t-test in the present study are
examples of the kinds of persuasive and rigorous data collection and analysis methods that Creswell (2009)
describe when referring to MMR. These methods are used across multiple disciplines and contexts. When
administered with rigour these methods are also accepted as valid and reliable, and supported by a
substantial amount of research reported over several decades. The qualitative and quantitative data gathered
in this study are complementary; they contribute to a more complete understanding of OTL and have the
potential to corroborate data collected via different methods. Philosophically, I have approached the use of
mixed methods from a social constructivist point of view of language teaching and learning, recognising
that OTL is a social phenomenon, requiring interaction between learners, and that mastery comes from use
(or practice) derived from interaction. This is consistent with descriptions found in research methods in
TESOL literature, e.g., Brown (2014), Riazi and Candlin (2014), Mirhosseini (2018), and in studies that
report the use of mixed methods to examine TESOL contexts, e.g., Caswell (2017), Moradkhani and Rahimi
(2020), Gkougkoura et al. (2022), Indrayadi and Irawan (2022) and Pham (2022). Taking this kind of social-
constructivist view is important for this study because it allows me to acknowledge that each participant
brings their own meanings and understandings to their practice. In this study. I want to capture the
participants’ voice, giving them a chance to share their meanings and experiences. This is even more
important in the post-pandemic period when there are opportunities for practitioners to influence how
online teacher education in TESOL is managed and administered in higher education. The voices of the
94
participants form a counterpoint to the qualitative and quantitative data gathered over the course of the
study and support my own understandings gained from the data which accounts for the significant emphasis
on practice in this study. There is an opportunity to contribute to theory on OTL, multimodality, and teacher
education in TESOL as a result of the findings reported below.
5.4.1. Mixed Methods: Purpose
Teaching English, and training English teachers, is a good example of the complex social inquiry
that can benefit from mixed methods research. A mixed methods approach allows us to draw on the
strengths and minimize the weaknesses of qualitative or quantitative research when used alone (Connelly,
2009, p. 31). A mixed methods approach is useful for research in the social sciences like teacher education
in TESOL and language teaching and helps researchers address complex social behaviours, interactions,
problems and other phenomena. So why choose to use this approach? When considering the purpose of
mixed methods, Chaumba (2013) lists five potential purposes, adapted from the work of Greene (2007) and
Desimone (2009):
• Complementarity – different methods are used to gather data on different aspects of the same
phenomena for the clarification or elaboration of data, resulting in increased depth and confidence
in the results from one method which help to clarify or illustrate results from another method. For
example, in this study, OLEs were examined using a content analysis that determined the frequency,
identity and category of semiotic resources present. On the other hand, students were asked to
identify which resources they believed helped to establish teaching, social and cognitive presence.
Together, these two data sets are complementary, providing a deeper understanding of what
semiotic resources are present in an OLE by examining the phenomenon from two different
perspectives.
• Development – different methods are used sequentially, and the results of one method inform the
next method used. This allows researchers to take advantage of the strengths of different methods.
Here, the content analysis of the OLEs is followed by interviews with instructor participants. The
design of the individual semi-structured interviews reflects the frequency, identity and categories
of the semiotic resources present in an instructor’s OLE. This survey of practice (content analysis,
interviews and the CoI survey) informed the design and development of the professional
development intervention.
• Expansion – different methods are used to gather data on different phenomena to expand the scope
of the study. This enables the study to answer more questions of interest. The discussions of
function that emerged from interview with instructors and multimodal pedagogy stemming from
the evidence in the literature review reported in this study are evidence of expansion.
• Initiation – different methods are used to collect data on different elements of the same phenomena,
with the goal of revealing contradiction. This approach specifically looks for data sets that
contradict each other. In turn, this leads us to new questions or reassessing one’s approach to the
phenomenon being studied. For example, the content analysis of instructors’ OLEs was compared
95
to the discussion of resources in interviews with instructors. Where the two data sets align there is
an element of corroboration. However, if the content analysis is radically different from what is
discussed in interviews there is a contradiction in the data.
• Triangulation – mixed methods are used to answer the same question(s) and reveal a
correspondence in the results, which enhances the validity of the study since the potential biases of
a qualitative- or quantitative-only study are offset. Triangulation leads to correspondence between
data sets and aids in addressing the validity and reliability of the study (see §5.5.5.1., Figure 5.2.).
5.4.2. Mixed Methods: Embedded Design
The mixed methods approach employed here is closest to what Creswell and Plano (2011) would
describe as an Embedded Design. Specifically, the examination of practice before and after the intervention
in the present study suggests an element of pre- and post-testing. However, while the content of the
intervention is influenced by the results of the first stage and its relative success measured by the results of
data gathered in the third stage, the intervention does not follow the scientific method of an experiment. An
embedded design in MMR is characterised by the use of QUANL and QUANT methods so that the findings
from one part of the study inform, support, explain or confirm other parts. Thus, there is a pre/post-
intervention design within the embedded structure. Data from interviews for example, is used to provide an
explanation of the instructor’s actions i.e., deepening our understanding of what was observed in the content
analysis, but the interviews are not part of the measurement or comparison of the pre- and post-intervention
results.
The pre- post-intervention approach allows me to take advantage of quantitative methods to
characterise, count and categorise semiotic resources in an OLE and to gather data on student perceptions
of the OLE and their instructor using a survey instrument. This is important because I need quantifiable
data of the OLE before and after the intervention to make a comparison of practice and thereby reveal
whether participants have applied the knowledge and concepts introduced in it. The content of online
discussion during the delivery of the intervention, coupled with a second round of interviews in the post-
intervention stage. The interviews in this third stage help to interpret and explain the results but they do not
influence the measurement coming out of the CoI survey. Interviews do provide us with a chance to hear
participant’s voice in the study (Chaumba, 2013) and create a more in-depth account and thus understanding
of their experiences.
5.4.3. Mixed Methods in Multimodal Studies
Mixed methods has proven to be a productive approach in previous multimodality studies (e.g.,
O’Halloran et al., 2016; Wignall et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018; O’Halloran et al., 2019). These cited papers
examined the interplay of different semiotic resources in extremist discourse, images and magazines arising
from conflict in Iraq and Syria. These kinds of studies often employ large data sets and combine quantitative
data mining instruments and information visualisation with qualitative methods such as multimodal
discourse analysis to corroborate and interpret data. Albeit on a smaller scale, the content analysis
96
conducted in the first stage of the present study follows the same principle – identifying and categorising
specific semiotic resources for further analysis in context.
5.4.4. Mixed Methods in TESOL
Mixed methods is a common approach in TESOL, prompting its use here. Colloquially, I would
suggest TESOL instruction is both a science reflecting sustained use of well-researched evidence-based
teaching methods, and an artform characterised by complex social phenomena. Thus, the use of a mixed
methods approach. In a systematic investigation of studies published in TESOL Quarterly and ELT Journal
(the two peak journals in the field of TESOL) during the period 2018 – 2020, Almuhaimeed (2022) found
that studies that reported using mixed methods approaches made up approximately 12% of those that were
published. Although a low number on the face of it, the number of mixed methods studies is greater than
all studies that reported using an experimental approach (10%) and fairly similar to the number that reported
using a non-experimental approach (approx. 13%). In addition, Almuhaimeed reports that, overall,
qualitative approaches saw an increase in the period examined of 40% from a similar study reported by
Lazaraton (2002) twenty years earlier. In studies on mobile assisted language learning (MALL), Gao et al.
(2021) report a similar increase in qualitative studies. Mixed methods approaches continue to grow in
popularity in applied linguistics, especially in teacher education in TESOL (e.g., Caswell, 2017; Arcagok
& Yilmaz, 2020; Moradkhani & Rahimi, 2020; Indrayadi & Irawan, 2022) and teacher education in TESOL
online (e.g., Skelly, 2019). In addition, a number of studies that have reported on English teaching online
and teacher education in TESOL online over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic have adopted mixed
methods approaches (e.g., Akbana & Dikilitaş, 2022; Dau, 2022; Gkougkoura et al., 2022; Pham & Hong,
2022). In addition to insight and inspiration, I can also address validity by demonstrating replicability of
the methodology and methods reported in these studies.
5.4.5. Mixed Methods and the CoI
Research literature on the CoI, and particularly studies that examine the OLE, are often quantitative
in nature, e.g., data collected through the administration of the CoI survey instrument; but few contain a
complementary qualitative component, e.g., the coding of transcripts of online communication for
indicators of presence (Stenbom, 2018). By contrast, in the present study the use of mixed methods aims to
obtain a much fuller understanding of semiotic resources; their contribution to CoI presences, the potential
for professional development resources to enable instructors to utilise semiotic resources, and of instructor
preferences and perceptions of OTL. Interestingly, the field of nursing is one of the more prominent fields
in the literature to report on the use of mixed methods and the CoI (e.g., Jackson et al., 2013; Smadi et al.,
2021). However, as noted in Chapter 2, in their examination of the CoI literature, Smidt et al. (2021) provide
the model for my use of mixed methods: the use of the CoI survey instrument as a method for gathering
quantitative data, while qualitative data was transcribed and coded.
97
5.4.5. Summary
Ultimately, the choice of a mixed methods approach in this study is driven by my two research
questions. Neither can be answered solely by quantitative or qualitative approaches. The use of mixed
methods is also reflective of the qualitative nature of teaching, learning and communication – namely, that
they are social acts. Similarly, using mixed methods reflects the many quantitative elements of OTL; for
example, time students spend logged in, or the number of clicks on a certain activity. Concentrating on
either the qualitative or the quantitative elements of OTL alone would not provide a full answer to the
research questions. Specifically, the MMR approach allows me to bring together insights garnered from
both of the qualitative and quantitative traditions to create a workable solution (Johnson & Onwuebigze,
2004) or answer.
5.5. Methods
I now describe the participants and data collection and analysis methods employed in this study.
5.5.1. Instructor-Participant Sampling and Recruitment
At the beginning of the study, a convenience sampling approach was used to recruit instructor-
participants who fulfilled all the following criteria:
• Teach in a university (either public or private), or Vocational Education and Training (VET)
context at Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Level 8 - 9 or equivalent (see §1.1.5.1).
• Teach pre- and in-service English language teachers online, as part of a TESOL qualification of at
least 200 hours in duration (i.e., the "minimum standard" for a TESOL qualification in numerous
jurisdictions).
• Have at least 10 students in their class.
• Be experienced English language teachers themselves with 10+ years of classroom experience
(Ball, 1990).
• Hold a master's degree or higher in English (literature), TESOL or Applied Linguistics.
Overall, a convenience sampling approach allowed me to recruit participants who are TESOL
instructors engaged in OTL in Australia and South Korea. Convenience sampling is not as simple as
recruiting anyone available and willing to participate, although given the chosen context of the study –
online teacher education in TESOL – the number of potential participants was small. At the same time, the
criteria did create the potential to be somewhat selective in who was included in the sample.
By contrast, a random sample may have yielded participants whose experience was irrelevant or
insufficient and were therefore unable to comment on the focus of the study (Cohen et al., 2011). A further
two instructors were recruited to replace two of the original five who withdrew for reasons unrelated to the
study. In both cases, the new participants were instructors at the same institutions as those they replaced
and were taking over delivery of the same subjects delivered by original participants.
98
5.5.2. Class A & B
Participant Michelle afforded me the opportunity to examine two of her classes (Class A and Class
B). In both the pre- and post-intervention periods Class A and Class B focused on the same subject matter
– classroom management practices in young learner (YL) TESOL, but of course the student cohorts were
different in each class. Having another OLE to examine meant that more data could be gathered.
Additionally, the potential for reporting data gathered from two classes where the teacher and content were
the same posed some intriguing questions regarding their similarities and differences and the potential
efficacy of the professional development intervention. Would each OLE be identical in terms of the
semiotic resources exploited by Michelle? (See §9.2.1. and §9.2.2.). There would likely be some differences
between the two classes in the pre- and post-intervention stages since there were different groups of students
in each class, but if marked differences were observed, especially in the post-intervention stage, what did
this mean, and would different groups of students have similar or differing perceptions of teaching, social,
and cognitive presence in their respective OLEs? (See §9.5.1.). Both instructor and student participants
(discussed below) were recruited from three universities: two public institutions in New South Wales,
Australia, and one private institution in Seoul, South Korea. A pseudonym was assigned to each of the
instructor-participants to preserve their anonymity, while the three institutions are referred to as: Southern
University (SU), Northern University (NU), and Central University (CU).
5.5.3. Student-Participant Recruitment
Student-participants recruited for this study fulfilled the following criteria:
• Be either a pre- or in-service English language teacher, studying in a TESOL qualification of at
least 200 hours in duration.
• Be enrolled at a university (either public or private), or Vocational Education and Training (VET)
organisation at AQF Level 8 – 9 or equivalent.
• Be a student of an instructor-participant recruited for this study.
The strategy for recruiting students was convenience sampling. Students and student teachers are
often the kinds of captive audience that serve as respondents based on convenience sampling (Cohen et al.,
2011). The sample here is made up of students who were available and accessible at the time and were
being taught by the instructor-participants. Student-participants were recruited because they were enrolled
in the subjects taught by instructor participants, experiencing the same OLEs examined in the study, and
their responses to the CoI survey would be essential for establishing the perceived level of the presences in
each OLE.
5.5.4. Ethics
Approval to conduct research involving human subjects was granted for this study by the Human
Research Ethics Sub-committee at Macquarie University, effective 19 August 2019 (Reference no.
52019540910013). Approval was also granted by the institutions where participants either taught or
99
attended as students. Each institution granted consent in late September 2019. Ethics application and
approval documentation is included in Appendix A.
5.5.5. Content Analysis
RQ1 asks, “What semiotic resources are exploited by online educators, how are they used, and
what is their potential to support online teaching and learning?”. To answer the first part of this question,
a content analysis was conducted in the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. Content analysis is
a well-established practice in research examining TESOL textbooks, journal articles and other texts. One
study stands out as a possible antecedent to this study: LaBelle’s (2011) content analysis of 33 English
language learning textbooks identified the frequency and categories of second language (L2) listening
strategies depicted in images compared to the frequency and categories described in the written text.
Analogously, the present study examined the frequency and categories of non-linguistic semiotic resources
used in an OLE and, consistent with its constructivist orientation, refined these categories during the pre-
intervention stage.
The content analysis of each instructor-participant's OLE serves to go beyond the analysis of
language-based transcripts of communication in an OLE alone, to identify, enumerate and categorise non-
linguistic semiotic resources that have the potential to contribute to teaching, social and cognitive presence.
The content analysis is made up of two parts. Firstly, having established what constitutes a semiotic
resource in this context (cf. Chapter 3 – Theoretical Framework), a frequency analysis is used to reveal the
number and frequency of a selection of semiotic resources present in each OLE. Secondly, the semiotic
resources are categorised by function (use) and how they act as an indicator of social, cognitive and teaching
presence.
Few, if any, contemporary TESOL related content analyses examine the OLE as the unit of analysis.
Instead, there are examples of studies using a content analysis approach that examine specific phenomena
or research areas. For example, Egbert (2007) attempted to quantify the attributes that represent “quality”
in TESOL and applied linguistics journals finding that
[A] single method, regardless of the number of components included, could not account
for important differences among journals and in reasons for publishing them
(p. 157)
Therefore, the content analysis in this study is one of three methods employed to account for
differences and reasons behind instructors’ choices. There is a variety of rationales underpinning the use of
content analysis (De Wever et al., 2002) as a method. In the present study, the descriptive possibilities of
content analysis are used to characterise, count, classify and compare semiotic resources used in the OLE.
As a way of enumerating and categorising information in an OLE, content analysis is “…a research method
that builds on procedures to make valid inferences from [a] text” (Anderson et al, 2001, p. 10), and has
formed the basis for numerous quantitative examinations of the CoI and presences. Content analysis is
common in studies examining social presence (Rourke et al., 1999; Tirado-Morueta et al., 2019), cognitive
100
presence (Garrison et al., 2001; Heckman & Annabi, 2002; Kovanović et al., 2018), and teaching presence
(Anderson et al., 2001; Rourke et al., 2001; Shea et al., 2003; Shea et al., 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Swan et al.,
2008; Liu, 2019). As such, utilising a content analysis in this study replicates previous valid and reliable
approaches to examining the CoI. However, the present study goes beyond those studies just cited, which
is because the focus on language (words) appears to forsake Holsti’s (1969) broader (and useful) definition
of content analysis, as “any technique that goes about the systematic identification of specific characteristics
of messages” (p. 14, cited in Stemler, 2001,).
The content analysis is fundamental to this study because it allows me to describe, quantify and
compare OLEs, which are complex texts, in a way that is systematic and as objective as possible
(Krippendorff, 1980; Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Sandelowski, 1995). There is evidence that content
analyses allow researchers to test theoretical issues that come out of the data being collected and enhance
overall understanding as a result (e.g., Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In addition, the content analysis condenses
what would be a much larger description of the semiotic resources and their function in the OLEs into a
more manageable series of categories17 (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008.). By comparing the results of the first content
analysis with those of a second content analysis conducted in the post-intervention stage, there is potential
for new insight to be uncovered and practical guidance to emerge and be actioned (Krippendorff, 1980).
In the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study, a complete copy of instructors’ OLEs was
made approximately one week prior to the end of the teaching session. Copies were then securely stored in
the respective institutions’ learning management systems. A team of three coders was engaged in a two-
part coding process. Coders were trained to code the OLEs, identifying and enumerating each occurrence
of the targeted semiotic resources and making a note of any issues or questions they had. Coding occurred
over approximately four weeks, with coders meeting online or discussing issues and questions via online
chat or messenger during the coding process. The first part of the content analysis focuses on identifying
the type and frequency of semiotic resources in the OLEs. The coding scheme used by the three coders is
presented in Table 5.1.
17 Elo and Kyngas (2008) state that researchers make a choice between “category” and “concept” as terms depending on the aims
of the content analysis. If the content analysis is to aid in the development of a new or add to an existing theory – as is the case
with this project – then concept is the preferred term. However, like Elo and Kyngas, when describing content analysis in the
context of this study, I use category since it and concept are used interchangeably and is the most common term in the literature.
101
Table 5.1a Typography Coding Scheme (Based on Stöckl, 2005)
Domain Typography Element Example
Microtypography
Sans Serif font e.g., Montserrat is a sans serif font.
Serif font e.g., Courier is a serif font.
Size
Smallest
Small
Medium
Large
Largest
Colour This text employs five colours.
Mesotypography
Font mixing This table is an example of font mixing within one component of a page. Six different fonts are used in this table:
Arial, Arial Narrow, Courier New, Al Tarikh, Times New Roman, and Malgun Gothic.
Line spacing
The following text has 1.0pt. line spacing:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel. Fusce vitae
lacinia massa. Cras tempor a erat sed ullamcorper.
This text has 2.0pt line spacing:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel. Fusce vitae
lacinia massa. Cras tempor a erat sed ullamcorper.
Alignment
Left aligned:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel. Fusce vitae
lacinia massa. Cras tempor a erat sed ullamcorper.
Centred:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel.
Fusce vitae lacinia massa. Cras tempor a erat sed ullamcorper.
102
Domain Typography Element Example
Right aligned:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel. Fusce vitae
lacinia massa. Cras tempor a erat sed ullamcorper.
Justified:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel. Fusce vitae
lacinia massa. Cras tempor a erat sed ullamcorper. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc
viverra leo dui, ut rutrum odio cursus vel.
Macrotypography
Typographic emphasis
This is an example of bold text.
This is an example of italicised text.
This is an example of underlined text.
Lists
An ordered list (<ol>)
•Apple
•Banana
•Strawberry
An unordered list (<ul>)
1. Apple
2. Banana
3. Strawberry
Other devices Tables, charts, and footnotes– all of which the reader has seen in this chapter.
103
Table 5.1b Other Semiotic Resources Coding Scheme
Semiotic Resource
Layout
Alignment
left, right, centred
Line Spacing
single, double
Indentation
unordered list, ordered list, instructions, other
Paragraphs
Icons & Emoji
Including emoticons
Images
Photograph
Drawing/illustration
Chart/figure
Video
External
YouTube, Vimeo
Native
Personalised
VoiceThread
Videoconference
Zoom, Google Meet, etc.
Audio
External
Soundcloud, Spotify
Native
Discussion
Discussion forums, comments under posts
Hyperlinks
Internal
External
The second part of the content analysis involved exploring the functions each type of semiotic
resource fulfils in an instructor’s OLE. While the first part of the content analysis takes a mostly traditional
approach, the second part is in line with interpretive content analysis approaches (e.g., Ahuvia, 2001;
Wester et al., 2004; Mayring, 2014). Interpretive content analysis allows me to go beyond simply
addressing frequency and make a more in-depth examination of latent content, that is, content that is mostly
implicit or cannot be readily observed in the OLE. The innovation here is the use of the content analysis to
go beyond written language and identify other semiotic resources acting as indicators of the CoI presences.
These indicators are usually manifest content (Rourke, et al., 2001) – content that for the most part is readily
observable or “on the page”. In the OLE, an example of manifest content might be an instructor’s use of a
student’s name in a reply to a forum post to draw them into a conversation – a “traditional” or language-
based indicator of teaching presence. On the other hand, utilising a semiotic software tool such as
VoiceThread (VoiceThread LLC, 2019) affords both student and teacher opportunities for self-disclosure
and social sharing – both indicators of social presence – to be expressed in a semiotically diverse way.
As with the first part of the content analysis, coders received approximately one hour of training,
practice and feedback on how to use the definitions of four potential functions – instructional,
discoursal/affective, aesthetic and navigation – to assign a primary and secondary functions to the semiotic
resources in the OLE. The coders met a second time to check progress and answer any questions that had
emerged from the process. Afterwards, the coding was imported into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2021)
for further analysis.
Having outlined the three central, qualitative and quantitative data collection methods employed in
the study, Figure 4.2 illustrates their complementarity and how data from one method can be used to
corroborate or build upon data from another. For example, responses from instructors in the interviews can
104
be used to corroborate the findings of the content analysis i.e., the resources instructors talk about in
interviews should be able to be observed in the OLE. Likewise, instructor’s comments in interviews provide
context to the results of the CoI survey around students’ perceptions of different resources. In this way, the
analysis of data collected via the different methods strengthens validity, provides different perspectives on
answering the research questions, and create a more in-depth understanding of the research overall.
Figure 5.2 Triangulation of Qualitative & Quantitative Data
5.5.6. Semi-Structured Interviews
The choices and thought processes behind the use of semiotic resources are qualitative in nature
and best elicited from participants during an interview. In turn, these data help to answer RQ1 (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?).
Moreover, interviews provide insight into the professional development needs of the instructors, consistent
with answering the first component of RQ2: What professional development resources assist educators to
increase the Community of Inquiry presences in their teaching? It can be difficult for a researcher to decide
what interview format to use or to describe why they are using it (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Oppenheim, 1992; Patton 1980 and Kvåle, 1996). In the pre-
intervention stage, interviews focus on eliciting instructors’ experiences teaching online, from the design,
development and delivery of courses, and the kinds of supports they receive from their institution, to using
the LMS and interacting with students online. The interviews are also used for eliciting each instructor-
participant’s understanding of non-linguistic semiotic resources and the potential of resources to increase
the CoI presences. In the post-intervention interviews, instructors addressed questions about their
105
experience of the intervention, the goals they set as part of that course, and their relative success in
achieving those goals in their OLE.
Semi-structured interviews allow for flexibility in the order of questions being asked and for
responding to the key points raised by the interviewee with further questions (Cohen, Manion & Morrison,
2011). Semi-structured interviews, therefore, have the potential to elicit higher-level, more in-depth
responses than instruments such as a questionnaire. Interviewees become more engaged in the process while
allowing the researcher to better handle more difficult topics and elicit information by using more open-
ended questions (Oppenheim, 2008). The semi-structured interview schedule topics and potential questions
(cf. Appendix C) are consistent with those that appear in the literature on the CoI framework and alterations
to the CoI survey instrument (see for example, Hewett & Ehmann Powers, 2007; Damm, 2016; Schmidt,
Tschida & Hodge, 2016; Feng, Xie & Liu, 2017; Pool, Reitsma & van den Berg, 2017; Martin, Sun &
Westine, 2020):
1. Interaction (Social presence) versus interactivity and active learning (Cognitive presence)
2. Communities of learning (Social presence)
3. Instructional design (Teaching presence)
4. Management and organisation (Teaching presence)
5. Task selection and affordances of the OLE (Cognitive presence)
6. Scaffolding and lesson staging (Cognitive presence)
7. Institutional support
8. Innovation and change
9. Learner characteristics
Topics and potential questions are organised around the themes of teaching, social and cognitive presence,
and elicit from participants their reasons for doing certain things in the OLE. There is also a potential for
eliciting from interviewees the amount of institutional support instructors receive in building and
maintaining their OLEs, and how they think students perceive the OLE. The topics and potential questions
were discussed and piloted with a TESOL instructor who did not participate in the study and were found to
be intelligible and relevant. While an interview allows for an exchange of views between two or more
people on a mutually interesting topic (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 349), it is not an everyday
conversation (Dyer, 1995, p. 56). Instead, interviews are a way of gaining access to “…what is inside [a
participant’s] head” (Tuckman, 1972, p. 244) for the researcher. The interviews conducted in the pre-
intervention stage are important, as the data gathered will inform the structure and content of the
professional development intervention alongside the results of the content analysis.
To facilitate analysis, face-to-face interviews were recorded using audio, while the videoconference
feed was captured for interviews with instructors in Korea with the audio used as data. Transcripts of each
interview were made using the transcription function of Microsoft Word Online (Microsoft, 2021), and
then checked and edited for accuracy where necessary. These transcripts were used for analysis of the
interviews.
106
5.5.7. Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
The Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008) is used across a number of
disciplines (for example Bangert, 2009; Carlon et al.,2012; Díaz, Swan, Ice & Kupczynski, 2010; Garrison,
2007; Heilporn & Lakhal, 2020; Kozan & Richardson, 2014; Olpak Yağcı & Başarmak, 2016; Stenbom,
2018), and asks respondents to indicate their level of agreement to 34 statements on a five-point Likert
scale (1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neither disagree or agree, 4. Agree, and 5. Strongly agree, as
well as I don’t know/Not applicable). The 34 statements are organised by presence: teaching, social and
cognitive, and by their 10 sub-categories.
In the present study, the purpose of the CoI survey instrument is to obtain a detailed description of
students’ perceptions of the extent to which a CoI is established in their OLE and the semiotic resources
they encounter online. To fulfil this purpose, three modifications were made to the original survey
instrument. Firstly, a series of demographic questions were added to the beginning of the survey. With
these data, an average or “typical” student within the study can be identified by describing students’ age,
gender, attendance mode (blended or fully online), level of education, and location. This kind of addition
to the CoI survey is seen regularly in the literature, as noted by Stenbom: “The vast majority of studies also
collect other data such as participant demographics […]. This is natural in order to make use of the survey,
given its purposes” (2018, p. 27). Secondly, there is potential for some of the language in the survey to be
problematic for respondents. This applies not just to respondents recruited from Korea, whose first language
is Korean, but also to respondents who are not native speakers of English in Australia attending Northern
University (NU) and Southern University (SU). As such, several questions include lexical simplifications
to take into account the level of difficulty in the language used in the original survey. In addition, I attempt
to localise the survey to an audience from the Asia-Pacific, from where most respondents originate. In total
14, or almost half of the questions underwent a minor change for lexis. However, these changes do not alter
the intent behind the questions as they first appeared in the original survey instrument (Arbaugh et al.,
2008). A summary of the changes, comparing original questions with the version used in this study, is
presented in Table 4.2. The administration of the survey instrument at the end of the teaching session
captures the nature of existing conditions (Cohen et al., 2011) in the five instructor-participants’
107
Table 5.2 Changes to the Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
Original CoI Survey Questions
(Arbaugh et al., 2008)
Multimodal Community of Inquiry
(This study)
• The instructor provided clear instructions
on how to participate in course learning
activities.
3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how
to participate in online activities (e.g., where, and
how to submit assignments).
4. The instructor clearly communicated important
due dates/time frames for learning activities.
4. The instructor clearly communicated important
due dates and time frames for online activities (e.g.,
dates for assignments)
5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of
agreement and disagreement on course topics that
helped me to learn.
5. The instructor helped me to understand where
there are agreements and disagreements in the
theory in this course.
9. The instructor encouraged course participants to
explore new concepts in this course.
9.The instructor encouraged students to explore new
concepts in this course.
10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of
a sense of community among course participants.
10. The instructor developed a sense of community
among students in this course.
17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online
medium.
17. Overall, I felt comfortable communicating
online.
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course
participants.
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other students
in the course (e.g., responding to their posts or
asking questions).
24. Course activities piqued my curiosity.
24. Course activities made me curious about theory
etc.
26. I utilized a variety of information sources to
explore problems posed in this course.
26. I used a variety of information sources to explore
problems and answer questions posed in this course.
28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me
appreciate different perspectives.
28.Online discussions were valuable in helping me
appreciate different points of view.
30. Learning activities helped me construct
explanations/solutions.
30. Learning activities helped me explain ideas and
create solutions.
31. Reflection on course content and discussions
helped me understand fundamental concepts in this
class.
31. Reflection on course content and discussions
helped me understand the most important concepts
in this class.
32. I can describe ways to test and apply the
knowledge created in this course.
32. I can describe ways to apply the knowledge
created in this course (e.g., how this knowledge
could be used in my own [future] English
classroom).
33. I have developed solutions to course problems
that can be applied in practice.
33. The answers and solutions to course tasks and
activities I have found can be applied in my own
[future] English classroom.
OLEs. The survey instrument provides us with a snapshot of the three presences as they appear in each of
the instructors’ OLEs, allowing for comparison between the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study.
In addition to measuring the presences in each class, the survey is oriented towards the first part of
RQ1(What semiotic resources are exploited by online TESOL Instructors), and the survey will provide us
with the first indication of students’ perceptions of the potential for semiotic resources to support OTL.
108
The third and final modification is the addition of a question that asks students to identify which
semiotic resources they perceive as contributing to each of the 10 sub-categories that make up social,
cognitive and teaching presence. Respondents are asked to select from a list of 14 semiotic resources,
provided in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Semiotic Resources added to the CoI Survey Instrument
Semiotic Resource
Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour, etc.)
Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists, etc.)
Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast, etc.)
Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function)
Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom, etc. to host a webinar)
Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flip grid)
Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings, etc.)
Other
The list of semiotic resources used here are adapted from three sources: the New London Group’s
five-part modal classification scheme (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000); the semiotic resources that Dresssen-
Hammouda and Wigham (2022) observed in instructional video tutorials in a study examining multimodal
literacy in an online English language teaching context; and semiotic resources listed in the Australian
English Curriculum (Education Services Australia, 2020). This last source was included in formulating the
list of resources because several students based in New South Wales are pre- and in-service English as an
Additional Language/Dialect (EAL/D) teachers and teaching to the Australian curriculum in state primary
and secondary schools. The list of semiotic resources is also influenced by the capabilities of the two
learning management systems (LMSs) that instructors use, Moodle and Google Classroom. To ensure
validity, it was necessary to include only those that can be created, embedded or otherwise used in both
LMSs. Like the minor changes to lexis in the survey questions, it is important to consider the language
proficiency of respondents when developing the list and deciding which semiotic resources to include. To
further scaffold respondents’ understanding, an example of each semiotic resource was provided in
parentheses, and a final “other” category was provided for additional responses.
109
Prior to both the pre- and post-intervention CoI survey, student-participants are provided with
information about the study, and informed consent was explained to them by their instructor. Student-
participants were also provided with contact details of a person they could contact locally if they had
questions or concerns about the survey or the study. In addition, student-respondents in Korea were
provided this information in both English and Korean. Student-participants were provided a link to the CoI
survey created in Qualtrics (Smith, Smith, Smith & Orgill, 2020) via a post in their respective LMSs.
Qualtrics is a widely used data analysis platform that allows researchers to create and distribute surveys.
The responses to the survey were then exported from Qualtrics into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2021) for
further analysis.
5.5.8. Anonymity
The administration of the CoI survey instrument poses challenges in terms of participant anonymity.
The relatively small number of students in each class (less than 20) means that arranging responses by age,
and especially gender may cause a participant to be identifiable. The small number of male respondents
from Central University for example, or respondents who are in the highest or lowest age ranges from any
of the institutions described here could be at risk of being identified, or at least responses attributed to them
(potentially incorrectly). Therefore, I have chosen to report demographic data captured by the CoI survey
administered in the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study but have not compared results by gender,
age, or location as part of the analysis. The possibility of using stratified sampling in future research to
create a student sample representing gender and age distribution of the wider pre- and in-service teacher
population is discussed in §11.5.1.
5.6. Validity and Reliability
5.6.1. Validity
Validity represents the extent to which the methods employed in a study are successful in accurately
measuring the phenomena or concepts they are intended to measure. In mixed methods, validity must be
addressed in terms of both the quantitative and qualitative elements of the study. There are also additional
validity requirements specific to mixed methods (Cohen et al., 2011). For example, integration, or the
combination and balance of quantitative and qualitative data, is important for the study’s potential to reveal
“information and perspective, increased corroboration of data and [the] rendering of less biased and more
accurate conclusions” (Reams and Twale, 2008, p. 133). In the present study, the analysis of qualitative
and quantitative data is used to corroborate findings, reveal different perspectives and, if necessary, identify
contradictions (Greene et al., 1989). By doing so I am also working to maintain validity. The presence of
phenomena in the quantitative data can be confirmed by looking for their presence in the qualitative data.
Being able to identify links between qualitative and quantitative data through the identification of the same
phenomena is a strong indication of the study’s validity (Caracelli & Green, 1997; Cameron & Miller,
2007). This is consistent with the description of the embedded mixed methods design described above.
110
I also address validity by attending to objectivity, specifically being vigilant about preconceptions
(Erlingson & Brysiewicz, 2017). Objectivity is most relevant when examining qualitative data such as the
semi-structured interviews, and during coding of quantitative data during the content analysis of OLEs. In
the early stages of designing the study, I considered the use of automated coding based on simple machine
learning or the use of algorithmic coding as a means of ensuring objectivity. This might have been feasible
if the content was purely text-based, but this kind of approach has significant shortfalls. Automated,
machine-driven coding has difficulty in detecting multimodal indicators of presence and is unable to code
the nuanced latent content present in OLEs18. Humans and machines don’t necessarily produce equivalent
coded data (Riffe et al., 2019). I also conceded that, while striving for objectivity is laudable, subjectivity
is inevitable when humans are involved in the coding of content (Mower, 1996). However, the experiences
and beliefs of researchers and coders are not necessarily an impediment to objectivity. Subjectivity can be
a useful signal that a coding scheme requires refinement, as has been the case in the present study.
In performing a content analysis of an OLE, coders encounter genuinely subjective phenomena,
for example, humour. One coder might find something hilarious, while another does not. To build
objectivity into the study, coders for the content analysis were provided with training where they examined
the coding scheme, considered the definitions of the different semiotic resources, accessed an example OLE
unrelated to the study in order to practise coding, and finally were provided feedback on their results.
Similarly, validity is addressed using appropriate instruments that are well-known and collect accurate,
relevant, representative data (King et al., 1987) which reflect the complexities of the issues (Cohen et al.,
2011). To ensure objectivity and thus the validity of interviews with instructor-participants, I used Kallio
et al.’s (2016) framework for the development of qualitative semi-structured interviews:
1. Identify the context and prerequisites for using a semi-structured interview. In this study,
semi-structured interviews allow flexibility in addressing topics and themes emerging in interviews,
while maintaining an overall objectivity based on participants being asked the same set of questions
across interviews.
2. Retrieve and use previous knowledge. Drawing on my experience as a researcher and online
instructor/educational developer, relevant questions are posed to participants while eliciting their
experiences through open-ended questioning.
3. Formulating the interview guide. Compiling questions and discussion prompts taking into
account the sequence in which they will be asked so there is overall coherence and logical
progression through the series of questions.
4. Pilot testing. As noted in the Methods section above, the interview questions were discussed with
an instructor not taking part in the study, for relevance and clarity. Subsequently, revisions were
made to some of the questions based on feedback.
18 Latent content usually manifests in the OLE as complex social behaviour. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to identify and,
in the context of the content analysis, difficult, but not impossible, to code.
111
5. Presenting the full interview guide. A copy of the interview questions is presented in Appendix
C.
Internal validity refers to the extent to which phenomena that I describe here can be sustained by
the data presented (Cohen et al., 2011). In other words, internal validity speaks to the accuracy, consistency
and credibility of the interpretations and conclusions that I make (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006), and these
conclusions are not the result of other factors external to the study. Internal validity of the present study is
ensured by using the same instrument in both the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. The validity
of the CoI survey instrument itself has been demonstrated previously in several large studies. Each found
the survey to be an appropriate measure of the constructs of cognitive presence, teaching presence, and
social presence (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Although I have modified the wording of
the instrument to better suit the participants in this study, it is still faithful to the originally conceived
instrument which has withstood considerable scrutiny and has been validated using multiple validation
techniques (e.g., Swan et al., 2008; Bangert, 2009; Diaz et al., 2010; Carlon et al., 2012). In addition, I have
employed the indicators of the different presences and subcategories when describing the presences. These
are already well-established and cited extensively in the literature (cf. Chapter 2 – Literature Review). The
use of the CoI survey with separate cohorts of student-participants in the pre- and post-intervention stages
helps to maintain internal validity as well and eliminates any testing or instrumentation threats to internal
validity, where the outcome of the pre-intervention has an influence on the outcomes of the post-
intervention stage19.
External validity is the degree to which we can take the results of this study and apply them more
generally to a population (Cohen et al., 2011). Not only can we expect lower external validity because of
the higher internal validity in this study, but generalisation of results, without examining the unique context,
socio-cultural factors, and behaviours that form part of the study, is contrary to qualitative and naturalistic
approaches to research. In particular, sampling of subjects to reflect the broader population to which
findings could be generalised for. Nevertheless, there are threats to external validity that are common across
qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research, including this study. First among my concerns is the
Experimenter effect, whereby my characteristics and observable behaviours inadvertently influence the
research outcomes, thus threatening external validity. The use of Kallio et al.’s (2016) framework for the
development of qualitative semi-structured interviews (described above) has the added benefit of
addressing the experimenter effect when it comes to interviews. The Hawthorne effect, or when participants
alter their behaviour because they know they are being studied, is another concern. Potentially, it could
manifest as instructor-participants changing their OLE prior to the content analysis being undertaken. To
mitigate this, a snapshot of the OLE is taken as soon as possible after the receipt of informed consent.
Finally, to address external validity, especially regarding the qualitative elements of the study, I employ a
19 However, it is also important to acknowledge that the profile of the two different cohorts could influence results because I have
taken advantage of an opportunistic sampling strategy rather than a truly random selection.
112
clear, detailed and in-depth description so that other scholars can decide on the extent to which the findings
are replicable in other contexts (Schofield, 1996; Cohen et al., 2011).
In sum, I have attempted to “design out” invalidity (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 198) from the start of the
research process. Mixed methods is an appropriate methodology for this study because it reflects the mixed
quantitative and qualitative elements of RQ1 and RQ2. Objectivity, or the awareness of bias, is addressed
in the content analysis by training coders and offering feedback, and in interviews by employing a
framework to develop the semi-structured interview guide. The instruments I have chosen to employ –
content analysis, semi-structured interviews, and the CoI survey – help to ensure validity through capturing
accurate, representative, relevant and comprehensive data (King et al., 1987). Threats to internal validity
are addressed by the replication of the data gathering methods in the pre- and post-intervention stages of
the study, and by employing a validated and extensively examined survey instrument in the CoI survey.
The aforementioned semi-structured interview guide and expedient gathering of data are used to mitigate
any threats to external validity. Perhaps the greatest threat to internal validity and objectivity fomes via the
professional development intervention. To mitigate this the intervention is designed using accepted
techniques already present in the literature on professional development, reflective practice, and education
(e.g., Farrell, 2020; Gagne et al., 2005; Richards & Farrell, 2005). As a result, there is thus a reasonably
high level of validity inherent to the present study.
5.6.2. Reliability
Like validity, the reliability of both quantitative and qualitative elements needs to be established in
a mixed methods study such as this one. While quantitative aspects of the study easily lend themselves to
examinations and discussions of accuracy and rigor, establishing “qualitative rigor” is more of a challenge20
for qualitative aspects of a study. In the literature on qualitative reliability, Yin (1994), Guba (1981), Guba
and Lincoln (1982, 1985) and Seale (1999) have used “trustworthiness” to describe the central concept of
reliability in their examination of rigor in qualitative studies. Trustworthiness relates to the degree of trust,
or confidence, that readers have in the results of the qualitative elements of the study (Schmidt & Brown,
2015; Cypress, 2017). To ensure the trustworthiness of the results of the content analysis of OLEs, I employ
three coders.
Each of the coders had experience using Moodle or Google Classroom or both, as either a student
or a teacher. As summarised in Table 5.4, they also had experience and disciplinary backgrounds related to
the present study:
20 Not least because the term qualitative rigor is oxymoronic and the process of qualitative inquiry is one that sets out to identify
and explain boundaries, not be constrained by them (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011; Cypress, 2017).
113
Table 5.4 Key Coder Characteristics
Qualification
Discipline
Moodle
Google Classroom
Coder 1
Masters
Applied Linguistics
Teacher & Student
Teacher
Coder 2
Doctorate
Computer Science
Teacher
--
Coder 3
Undergraduate
Linguistics
Student
Student
Different coders, coding the same content, should arrive at similar results, but only in so far as the
coding scheme and training of coders allows. As noted above in relation to validity, coders were provided
with training in how to use the coding scheme and opportunities to practice and receive feedback on their
coding, before working on data from the various OLEs. The coding scheme itself helps to ensure reliability
by being relatively simple but based on established approaches documented in the literature. In addition,
the precise definitions of semiotic resources and coding rules are a means for reducing coders’ subjective
biases (Kolbe & Burnett, 1991) i.e., increasing their objectivity, and will ultimately aid in replication of the
content analysis approach described here in the future.
A more complex coding scheme has the potential to yield in-depth understanding but would do so
at the expense of reliability. In the case of the present study, an inductive coding approach (Cypress, 2017;
Chandra & Shang, 2019) is used. This means that coding is an iterative process, but this results in a more
complete and potentially less biased examination of the data derived from the OLEs. The size of the sample
in this study suggests that a simple measure of agreement between coders is necessary to demonstrate
reliability – Riffe et al. propose a desired level of agreement of 80% (2014, p. 110). Similarly, the coding
schemes described in the CoI literature to identify indicators of teaching (Rourke et al., 2001; Swan & Shih,
2005; Shea et al., 2010), social (Rourke et al., 1999; Swan & Shih, 2005; Shea et al. 2010) and cognitive
(Garrison et al., 2000; Shea et al., 2010) presence are utilised here. The indicators of presence are consistent
throughout the literature and their use replicated numerous times.
Another means of ensuring reliability, especially regarding the quantitative elements of the present
study, is to make sure that it can be replicated. Replicability is perhaps the most important form of reliability
(Krippendorff, 2019). Replicability refers to the extent to which sufficient information is provided, in terms
of methods and procedures, that the study could be repeated by other scholars (cf. Seale, 2004). Both the
qualitative and quantitative elements of the present study are replicable, with streamlined procedures used
and detailed descriptions of methods provided above. Were another study to be conducted using the
methods described here, it is reasonable to expect a high degree of replicability with the results of the
subsequent study consistent with those presented here (i.e., reliability). This is different from
reproducibility which would see a second study obtaining results consistent with those here using the same
data and code as those outlined here (Miceli, 2019)
114
5.7. Data Analysis
5.7.1. Content Analysis
Data from the pre-intervention stage of the study were first analysed to determine the kinds of
semiotic resources appearing in each of the OLEs, and then to determine the frequency with which they
appear. To analyse and visualise these data further, a series of starburst charts was created that condensed
the number of semiotic resources into eight categories (cf. Table 4.3), with a series of subcategories. This
provided further, more granular detail about the frequency of semiotic resources in the OLEs. To analyse
the data relating to functions that different resources fulfill in the OLE, the results of coding were compared
to statements made by instructor-participants in the semi-structured interviews. This allowed for the
creation of a definition for each of the four functions – instructional, discoursal/affective, aesthetic, and
navigational – to be elucidated. In the post-intervention stage, comparisons of the type and frequency of
semiotic resources were made using data from the content analysis. Charts were used to illustrate the
differences. Through the process of identifying, enumerating, and categorising the different non-linguistic
semiotic resources observed in OLEs, content analysis allowed for ongoing refinement of the scope of what
constitutes a “semiotic resource”. Based on evidence in the literature versus observation of resources in
situ, the broad definitions and inclusions used at the beginning of the study can be narrowed, more
accurately reflecting what is a non-linguistic semiotic resource for the purposes of this study, how many
are used, and why.
5.7.2. Semi-structured Interview Data
In the pre-intervention stage, recordings and transcripts from the semi-structured interviews were
imported into NVivo (QSR International, 2020), along with interviewer notes, to perform a thematic
analysis of the discussions with instructor-participants. The thematic analysis was a three-step process
beginning with preliminary coding using four basic codes: CoI, semiotic resources, semiotic resource
functions, and technical concerns/mishaps/misadventures in the OLE. These initial themes were refined or
expanded to reflect the content of the discussion, so that the final coding scheme for the semi-structured
interviews identified when the instructor-participants talked about OTL and made indirect or implicit
reference to the CoI framework (sometimes without knowing), specific types of semiotic resource (e.g.,
animation, colour, photographs). Two overarching themes thus emerged: (1) the instructor-participants’
awareness of the CoI; and (2) the types and functions of semiotic resources (used in an OLE). Illustrative
excerpts were highlighted in NVivo and exported for reporting of results. In addition, to support the
identification of themes, the frequency with which instructor-participants discussed semiotic resources
from the list described in Figure 4.3 and the CoI were identified and plotted using bar charts to visualise
the discussion. In the post-intervention stage, the questions in the semi-structured interviews changed to
focus more on the effect of the intervention; but otherwise, the same process, of transcription, initial coding,
coding (using the same coding scheme), and theme identification, was followed.
115
5.7.3. Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
The results of the CoI survey administered in the pre-intervention stage of the study were analysed
using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2021) to produce descriptive statistics. Demographic data were
summarised and presented for the cohort as a whole so that student-participant anonymity could be
preserved. Responses to the 34 CoI survey items were also presented for the cohort for the same reason.
However, each class was then analysed individually in terms of the mean responses for teaching, social and
cognitive presence, as well as the 10 presence subcategories
The CoI survey was also administered to instructors participating in the professional development
intervention. As with the pre- and post-intervention stages, these data were analysed using Microsoft Excel
(Microsoft, 2021) to produce descriptive statistics. The results of that survey are presented as an appendix
(see Appendix E) to this thesis. The mean scores for each of the CoI presences are presented in §8.4.2.
In the post-intervention stage, the procedure for analysing the results of the CoI survey was similar,
with the descriptive statistics, demographic data, and responses to the 34 survey items analysed as a single
cohort. In addition, a t-Test was performed to determine whether there was a statistical difference between
the pre- and post-intervention cohorts of students. Class-by-class analysis of presences was again plotted
on a radar chart; but in the post-intervention stage, the results from both surveys were used to show where
changes, if any, had occurred. This time, the semiotic resources student-participants identified were
analysed by class and compared to identify any changes between the different classes.
5.8. Summary
This chapter has presented my two research questions derived from the gap in the literature
identified above in Chapter 3 (§3.9.). RQ1 and RQ2 seek to identify the kinds of semiotic resources being
used in OLEs, and the possibility of professional development assisting instructors to use semiotic resources
to increase the CoI presences in their OLEs. To address these questions, I first described my research design,
then I considered the reasons behind my decision to employ an embedded, mixed methods design and
discussed the underlying epistemology in a mixed methods approach. The steps for operationalising the
methodology – the methods for gathering quantitative and qualitative data – were listed. Finally, I explained
the processes by which I analyse the data. Analysis of the data is presented in the next chapter.
116
Chapter 6 – Pre-Intervention Survey of Practice
In the previous chapter, I outlined both the methodological underpinnings for this study and the
methods used to gather and analyse data over the three stages of the study. This chapter presents the
outcomes of the Pre-intervention stage of this study, which involves the analysis of three data sets:
1. A content analysis which identified, categorised and enumerated the semiotic resources in
instructor-participants’ OLEs.
2. Semi-structured interviews with instructors which allow us to better understand the choices made
in OLE design; and
3. The results of the Community of Inquiry (COI) survey administered to students in the six OLEs
which shows how these resources are perceived and evaluated by the students as the end users of
the OLE.
Figure 6.1 Pre-intervention Research Design
The content analysis is the logical starting point for establishing the status quo and contextualising the
subsequent data collection.
6.1. Content Analysis of Semiotic Resources in OLEs
In this section, I present the results of a content analysis of the instructor-participants’ six OLEs.
The content analysis allows us to examine both linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic resources that
instructors use to communicate with their students in the OLEs. Through multiple examinations of the
OLEs I have been able to synthesise a list of semiotic resources for a TESOL OLE through a deductive
process.
The analysis identifies seven main categories of non-linguistic semiotic resources:
1. Audio
2. Discussion
3. Hyperlinks
117
4. Icons & Emoji
5. Images
6. Typography
7. Video
While most of these categories are uncomplicated in their conceptualisation, determining a
category for icons and, especially, emoji is difficult. Icons and emoji fall somewhere between typography
and images, reflecting the typographical and graphical characteristics of icons and emoji. From the major
categories listed come a series of subcategories that provide more information in terms of the type of
semiotic resource, so that an image might be a photograph, an illustration, or a chart/figure. Similarly, a
video might consist of an externally created video embedded in the OLE or video created by the instructor
and audio could be external or internal and instructor created. Discussion is usually made up of posts where
an instructor is initiating discussion via a forum post or answers and responses from students. Finally,
hyperlinks are either internal, directing students to other pages within the OLE, or external, which sees
them leave the OLE and venture out onto the open internet.
A deductive approach was used to identify, categorise, and enumerate semiotic resources present
in OLEs. Using a deductive approach meant the coding process began with a pre-established set of codes.
A pre-established set of codes was possible because both Google Classroom and Moodle are designed to
be rendered in HTML5 compliant browsers (e.g., Google Chrome, Firefox). As a result of both LMSs
complying with HTML5 web standards, the number, and kinds of semiotic resources possible in the OLE,
although large, is a known, finite number. For example, there are five font sizes21, which, for ease of coding,
were labelled extra-small through to extra-large. In terms of font size then, each time written language
shifted from one size to another, this was coded as one instance of the new size. Instances of typographic
semiotic resources were coded in semantic units, so that one bolded word in a sentence constituted one
instance of bold typeface. Multiple bold words in succession that were interpreted by coders as acting
together either in a phrase or a whole sentence were also coded as one instance.
21 Web standards mean there are potentially seven sizes of font in both Moodle and Google Classroom as they use the CSS2 W3C
web font specification. In CSS, font sizes are described as xx-small, x-small, small, medium, large, x-large, and
xx-large. Having examined them once, coders confirmed that the sizes at the extreme of this spectrum, extra extra-small and
extra extra-large were not present in any of the OLEs.
118
Figure 6.2 Examples of Bold Typeface for Coding
Usually, other semiotic resources – especially those governed by web standards, were easy to ascertain.
Coders found line spacing, for example, easy to ascertain by coders given that the web standard is 1.14 pt.
Coders were more likely to look for exceptions to the standards and bring those to discussion with other
coders to make a determination. In addition to the discussion and pre-coding practice described in Chapter
5 – Methodology, coders used an online coding dictionary of semiotic resources created for this study (see
Appendix F) providing definitions and examples of semiotic resources for them to refer to while coding.
Coding was carried out by three coders with each using an electronic copy of the pages from the OLEs to
markup, and a spreadsheet to record tallies of the semiotic resources observed. Percentage agreement was
used to calculate intercoder reliability finding coders agreed approximately 91.5% of the time.
As an example of the process of coding, the use of bold typeface in Michelle’s (Class A) OLE is
illustrative. There are over 200 instances of bold typeface use in Class A consisting of single bold words,
phrases, and sentences (no instances of a single bold letter were observed). In their interview, Michelle
indicated that one of her usual practices was to use bold to highlight important steps within a list of
instructions for a task, and times and dates. Another example of Michelle’s use of bold typeface is to
highlight to students a question in a post or comment, especially questions related to reflection on practice.,
and the spreadsheet tallying the semiotic resources observed on that page.
6.2. Results: Identifying Semiotic Resources in the OLE
This section describes the semiotic resources that were identified and categorised in the six OLEs
and describes the similarities and differences between them. Figures 6.3 – 6.8 visualise the results of the
content analysis discussed above. First, the overall frequency and use of resources common across each of
119
the OLEs is described (see Table 6.1). Then, the results of the content analysis for each class are visualised
along with brief comments on what was observed.
Table 6.1 Semiotic Resource Frequency Classes A-F (Pre-Intervention)
Class
A*
B*
C
D
E
F
Learning Management System (LMS)
Google Classroom
Moodle
Colour
39
41
22
44
18
18
Typography
Typeface
Serif
0
0
0
1
15
2
Sans Serif
15
15
9
26
1
7
Bold
212
262
157
326
117
238
Italics
0
0
0
143
28
30
Underlined
0
7
0
108
1
6
Other
0
0
0
0
0
11
Size
Extra Small
1
5
2
389
22
48
Small
84
92
29
49
0
113
Medium
19
24
12
123
5
29
Large
35
37
7
101
22
27
Extra Large
0
0
1
13
42
56
Alignment
16
16
10
26
3
6
Line Spacing
7
8
4
20
1
5
Indentation
Unordered List
36
3
3
110
33
34
Ordered List
4
5
0
26
11
14
Instruction
3
3
34
3
14
1
Other
0
43
0
5
2
3
Paragraphs
20
20
30
162
44
67
Icons & Emoji
23
24
111
338
95
135
Images
Photograph
113
246
93
5
2
2
Drawing/Illustration
61
60
55
87
2
97
Chart/figure
15
15
2
1
4
1
Video
External (embedded)
10
0
10
10
14
0
Native
2
0
2
2
0
0
Personalised video
0
0
0
0
0
22
Videoconference
0
2
0
0
0
0
Audio
External (embedded)
0
0
0
6
0
0
Native
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discussion
Instructor Posts
40
59
28
0
16
1
Instructor Comments/replies
1
0
6
0
0
42
Hyperlinks
Internal
153
99
122
247
21
152
External
1
2
1
64
16
86
Note: Class A and Class B are both taught by Instructor-participant Michelle.
120
6.2.1. Typography
Although there are notable exceptions, discussed below, the frequency of use of semiotic resources
are similar across the OLEs. For example, all six OLEs take advantage bold typefaces much more than any
other typography resource. The use of small, medium, and large font sizes is also prominent among the six
OLEs. Table 6.1 also shows instructors used unordered lists and to a lesser extent ordered (numbered) lists.
Most use sans serif fonts overall, and this is probably a result of the default fonts in both Google Classroom
and Moodle being sans serif.
6.2.2. Images
While resources associated with typography are the most frequent of the semiotic resources
observed in Classes photographs outnumbered typographic resources in Class B. However, the number of
photographs is principally an effect of the LMS (Google Classroom) appending a user’s profile photo to
any post or comment they create. From this we can deduce that there was a considerable amount of
discussion in the OLE, and this is evidenced in the starburst chart for Class B (Figure 6.4). The large number
of profile pictures is endemic to Google Classroom. Those OLEs built in Moodle showed a higher
prevalence of drawings and illustrations used by instructors. While Moodle has a similar functionality,
appending photos to discussion posts, fewer students upload a profile picture. In contrast, students at
Central University must upload a profile picture to their Google Classroom account as part of an initial
“getting to know you” task at the beginning of the session.
6.2.3. Hyperlinks
For hyperlinks, the content analysis showed that the number of internal links, i.e., links that take
students from one part of the OLE to another, is much higher than anticipated. In all the OLEs, internal
links outnumbered external links – links to pages and resources on the public internet outside of the
Learning Management System (LMS) and outside of the OLE. In OLEs built in the Google Classroom
LMS, the number of external links observed was negligible: zero in Class A, two in Class B, and zero again
in Class C. In OLEs built in the Moodle LMS, the number of external links was much higher, with 86
external links in Class F (Chloe), for example.
6.2.4. Discussion
Discussion occurred in five of the six OLEs with varying numbers of posts and replies from
students and their instructors. The largest number of discussion opportunities were observed in classes A
and B (Michelle). Despite teaching the same subject to two groups of students, there is almost one third
difference in the number of discussions with 41 being observed in Class A and 59 observed in Class B.
6.2.5. Video
Video did not appear in the pre-intervention OLEs of Classes A – C. These classes all have Google
Classroom as their LMS. Unlike other LMSs, Google Classroom does not allow users to embed video
within the LMS. Instructors are only able to link to videos. At the time of the content analysis in the pre-
121
intervention survey of practice (mid-2019) Instructors could only link to a video external to the LMS.
Where a video was stored in YouTube, a title and thumbnail were appended to the link. However, videos
from other sources (e.g., Vimeo) would appear as a blank thumbnail and contracted URL rather than a title
and author information. Videos instructors created themselves would be treated in a similar way to
YouTube videos so long as instructors uploaded the video to Google drive and then linked to it from the
LMS. By contrast, Classes D – F, which have the Moodle LMS, featured external video (for example,
YouTube videos embedded in the OLE), more than native or instructor-created video. The exception is
Class F (taught by Chloe) which, as part of the subject content, asked students to create video via
VoiceThread. Consequently, these were categorised as “personalised videos”, videos that are created by
either instructor or student as a direct response to a question that has been posed or, in the case of Class F
students’ response to a (formative) assessment task. As a result, there was a greater number of personalised
videos in the Class F OLE – some 22 videos. These personalised videos are quintessential examples of
social presence in the Class F OLE fostering open and affective communication, and potentially group
cohesion by offering students an opportunity to share experiences with each other and leave comments on
other’s videos. Audio was only found in the Class D (taught by Ben) OLE. Five out of the six examples of
audio observed in this OLE were native, that is, created by the instructor, and each provided a narrative to
the subject content to be listened to alongside written language and other semiotic resources such as
PowerPoint presentations.
6.2.6. Icons & Emoji
Finally, the use of icons occurred across all the OLEs regardless of which LMS they were built in.
While the number of icons employed in Classes A and B was low, at 20 each, there were some 338
individual icons in the Class D OLE. However, the Class D OLE is somewhat larger in terms of pages and
content available to students. Conversely, emoji use by instructors (and students) was only found in Classes
A – C taught at Central University in South Korea. Those subjects taught in Australian institutions (Classes
D – F) did not have any instances of emoji use by either instructors or students. Table 5.2 summarises the
number of non-typographical semiotic resources observed in the six OLEs.
6.3. Visualisation
To show the prevalence of the different semiotic resources employed by each instructor, I created
a series of sunburst charts (sometimes referred to as a ring chart or radial treemap) for each OLE. Each
starburst chart provides a useful “snapshot” of resource use among the OLEs. At the centre of the chart are
the top-level categories of semiotic resource, so in the case of these OLEs, typography, icons and emoji,
images, video, audio, hyperlinks and discussion. Moving outward from the centre, the next ring contains
subcategories. The outermost ring contains the number of times each semiotic resource was observed. The
angle of each segment is proportional, and thus we can estimate which semiotic resources see the most use
in each of the OLEs. These “snapshots” of resources use by instructors provided the basis for the design
and development of the next stage of the study – the intervention.
122
6.3.1. Classes A & B (Michelle)
Table 6.2 Semiotic Resource Use, Classes A-B (Pre-Intervention)
Class
Bold
Italicised
Underlined
XS + Small
Medium
XL + Large
A
212
0
0
85
19
35
B
94
0
0
85
19
35
Class
Ord. List
Unord. List
Alignment
Line Spacing
Sans Serif
Colour
A
3
4
17
7
15
39
B
5
3
16
8
15
41
Class
Chart/
Figure
Illust.
Photo.
Image
Total
A
15
61
113
189
B
15
60
246
321
Class
Icon/
Emoji
Video
Audio
Hyper-
links
Disc.
A
23
0
0
154
41
B
24
4
0
101
59
Note. Extra small (XS), small, Extra-large (XL), and Large font sizes are relative to the medium font size in each of
the OLEs. This is usually the default size for posting to the OLE in a post, comment, or forum.
The OLEs for Classes A and B were both designed and developed by instructor-participant
Michelle for two groups of students studying the same subject matter - Classroom management (theory and
practice). Nevertheless, there were considerable differences in the number of semiotic resources included
in the two environments. Class A featured discussion (41), hyperlinks (154), icons and emoji (23), images
(189) and typography (435). In Class B, the content analysis captured discussion (59), hyperlinks (101),
icons and emoji (24), images (255), typography (186) and video (4). Neither Class A nor B contained audio.
The similarities between resource use between the two classes are unsurprising as they are both the
same subject/content with minor differences based on the needs of each group of students. Ordered and
unordered lists, font sizes, coloured typefaces and bold typefaces fulfilled primarily instructional functions,
in both Class A and B while blue typefaces and medium and large-sized typefaces supported navigation.
Blue typeface appeared in hyperlinks, and medium and larger typefaces used in headings for the different
sections in the OLE. Typography resources that align written language on the screen were primarily
aesthetic in their function, apart from centre-aligned text which functioned navigationally i.e., in the form
of headings. Figure 6.3 shows the distribution of semiotic resources identified in and categorised in Class
A.
123
Figure 6.3 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class A) Pre-intervention
Illustrations in the two OLEs primarily supported instruction, whereas photos and, especially,
profile photos functioned discoursally/affectively. Images in page headers were predominantly aesthetic in
function, but also served a navigational function, as clicking on them would return users to the front page
of the OLE. Icons functioned instructionally when indicating a task or kind of resource available to students
in the OLE. However, icons can serve a primarily navigational function when consistent with the kind of
navigation strategy described in Chapter 4 – (§4.2.3.). Emoji, as part of posts, comments or responses in
the OLE, were primarily discoursal/affective, expressing emotion22. Hyperlinks functioned navigationally,
whether taking the form of a contextualised hyperlink that forms part of a sentence or statement, or as part
of an image or thumbnail. Finally, video only appeared in the Class B OLE and fulfilled a primarily
instructional function, but in the four cases observed, had an almost equal discoursal/affective function
eliciting responses from students.
22 We have come to accept emoji as legitimate additions to a text (Derks, Arjan & Von Grumbkow 2007; Thompson & Filik, 2016),
and we know that age, gender, and background influence a reader’s understanding and approach towards the use of emoji in texts
(Alshenqeeti, 2016) the same as does written language. Furthermore, emoji have a discoursal/affective element (Riordan, 2017;
Danesi, 2016; Kaye, Malone & Wall, 2017).
124
Figure 6.4 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class B) Pre-intervention
Note: Class A and Class B are both taught by Instructor-participant Michelle.
6.3.2. Class C (Tayla)
In Class C, semiotic resources in the categories of discussion (34), hyperlinks (123), icons and
emoji (111), images (150), and typography (256) were observed. In the Class C OLE, the distribution of
non-linguistic semiotic resources and the functions they fulfil are comparable to those described in Classes
A and B.
Table 6.3 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class C (Pre-Intervention)
Class
Bold
Italicised
Underlined
XS + Small
Medium
XL + Large
C
157
0
0
31
12
8
Class
Ord. List
Unord. List
Alignment
Line Spacing
Sans Serif
Colour
C
0
3
10
4
9
22
Class
Chart/
Figure
Illust.
Photo.
Image
Total
C
2
55
93
150
Class
Icon/
Emoji
Video
Audio
Hyper-
links
Disc.
C
111
0
0
123
34
Note. Extra small (XS), small, Extra-large (XL), and Large font sizes are relative to the medium font size in each of
the OLEs. This is usually the default size for posting to the OLE in a post, comment, or forum.
125
Figure 6.5 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class C) Pre-intervention
6.3.3. Class D (Ben)
Class D’s OLE also employed semiotic resources in the categories of hyperlinks (311), icons and
emoji (338), images (93), typography (1467) and video (12), and was the only one in this study to include
audio (6). Audio functioned primarily instructionally within the Class D OLE yet had a secondary
affective/discoursal function. The use of typography in Class D was considerably greater than in the other
OLEs examined in this study. Despite the greater number of resources related to typography, semiotic
resources found in the Class D OLE functioned in similar ways to those found in the other OLEs.
Table 6.4 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class D (Pre-Intervention)
Class
Bold
Italicised
Underlined
XS + Small
Medium
XL + Large
D
326
143
108
119
254
111
Class
Ord. List
Unord. List
Alignment
Line Spacing
Sans Serif
Colour
D
26
110
26
20
26‡
6
Class
Chart/
Figure
Illust.
Photo.
Image
Total
D
1
87
5
93
Class
Icon/
Emoji
Video
Audio
Hyper-
links
Disc.
D
338
12
6
311
0
Note. Extra small (XS), small, Extra-large (XL), and Large font sizes are relative to the medium font size in each of
the OLEs. This is usually the default size for posting to the OLE in a post, comment, or forum. ‡ Plus one instance of
serif font use.
126
Figure 6.6 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class D) Pre-intervention
6.3.4. Class E (Sam)
Discussion (16), hyperlinks (37), icons and emoji (95), images (4), typography (304) and video (15)
were observed in the Class E OLE. Like Class D, Class E had a higher number of typographic resources
yet these and other resources functioned similarly to those observed in the other OLEs.
Table 6.5 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class E (Pre-Intervention)
Class
Bold
Italicised
Underlined
XS + Small
Medium
XL + Large
E
117
28
1
22
5
64
Class
Ord. List
Unord. List
Alignment
Line Spacing
Sans Serif
Colour
E
11
33
3
1
1‡
18
Class
Chart/
Figure
Illust.
Photo.
Image
Total
E
0
2
2
4
Class
Icon/
Emoji
Video
Audio
Hyper-
links
Disc.
E
95
15
0
37
16
Note. Extra small (XS), small, Extra-large (XL), and Large font sizes are relative to the medium font size in each of
the OLEs. This is usually the default size for posting to the OLE in a post, comment, or forum. ‡ Plus 15 instances of
serif font use.
127
Figure 6.7 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class E) Pre-intervention
6.3.5. Class F (Chloe)
Discussion (43), hyperlinks (238), icons and emoji (135), images (100), typography (631) and
video (15) were observed in the Class F OLE. The distribution of semiotic resources in the OLE is
comparable to that seen in the other OLEs, with typographic resources the majority of those observed, with
their primary function being instructional. Hyperlinks and icons fulfilled navigational functions; though, as
with the other OLEs, icons could serve an instructional function, too.
Table 6.6 Typographical Semiotic Resource use Class F (Pre-Intervention)
Class
Bold
Italicised
Underlined
XS + Small
Medium
XL + Large
F
238
30
6
161
29
83
Class
Ord. List
Unord. List
Alignment
Line Spacing
Sans Serif
Colour
F
14
34
6
5
7†
18
Class
Chart/
Figure
Illust.
Photo.
Image
Total
F
1
97
2
100
Class
Icon/
Emoji
Video
Audio
Hyper-
links
Disc.
F
135
42
0
238
43
Note. Extra small (XS), small, Extra-large (XL), and Large font sizes are relative to the medium font size in each of
the OLEs. This is usually the default size for posting to the OLE in a post, comment, or forum. † Plus two instance of
serif font use.
128
Figure 6.8 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class F) Pre-intervention
The content analysis in the pre-intervention stage reveals seven categories of semiotic resource
within the six OLEs. The high number of typographic semiotic resources employed in OLEs revealed that
written language was a dominant mode in the design and delivery of their OTL. After typography,
hyperlinks were the second largest category of resources, followed by icons and emoji and images,
discussion, video and, finally, audio. Taken together, the starburst charts and content analysis address RQ1
and reveal what non-linguistic resources were exploited by the instructor-participants.
6.4. Results: Instructor-Participant Semi-Structured Interviews
This section describes the results derived from the semi-structured interviews conducted with
instructor-participants in the pre-intervention stage of the study. The semi-structured interview prompts
developed using Kallio et al.’s (2016) framework (see §5.6.1.) are listed are listed in Appendix C. The
prompts consisted of a set of more general, probing questions around participants’ experience teaching
online, and then sets of questions eliciting reasons why instructors had chosen different semiotic resources
based on the examination of their OLE. These questions, and subsequent answers, were organised by CoI
presence. The profiles of the various instructors that participated are presented in this section including two
additional instructors recruited when two original participants had to withdraw from the study. Themes
emerging from the interviews are described and finally the discussion pertaining to the function of semiotic
resources in the OLE, helping to identify how resources are exploited by instructors is outlined.
129
6.4.1. Participant Profiles
Table 6.7 provides a brief biographical profile of each of the instructor-participants recruited for
the study.
Table 6.7 Participant Information23
Institution
Instructor
Class
Background/Experience
Central
University
(Seoul,
Korea)
Michelle
A
Michelle has an undergraduate degree in education and holds a master’s degree in
teaching English to speakers of other languages. In addition, Michelle is a Certified
Google Educator.
Prior to arriving at Central University, Michelle had 10+ years’ experience teaching K-
12 in North America and teaching English to young and very young learners in South
Korea. At the beginning of the study, Michelle had approximately five years’ experience
as a TESOL instructor in the graduate school of TESOL at Central University. Michelle
specialises in young learner (YL) TESOL (learners aged approx. 4 – 14 years). Both
subjects Michelle teaches in the present study are focused on classroom management
techniques when teaching English to young learners.
During the study, Michelle was promoted to head of the YL TESOL program at CU. She
is an active member of KoreaTESOL – the peak body for TESOL in South Korea,
holding multiple local and national roles in the organisation.
Michelle’s first language is English, and she speaks Korean at a pre-intermediate level.
B
Tayla
C
Tayla has undergraduate and graduate degrees in linguistics.
Prior to arriving at CU, Tayla was an English Language Fellow for the US State
Department in Southeast Asia. During the study, Tayla taught a TESOL methods subject
in the adult TESOL program. Methods is the core subject in the CU adult TESOL
program, incorporating both theory and practicum elements. Tayla had considerable
input into a significant curriculum redesign for the methods subject which was being
taught for the second time at the beginning of the study.
Tayla withdrew at the halfway point for reasons unrelated to the study (but did complete
the professional development course).
Tayla’s first language is English, and she speaks Korean at a beginner level.
Ava
C (1)
Ava joined the study at the halfway point after being at CU for six months. She holds a
postgraduate certificate and a master’s degree in TESOL.
Prior to joining CU, Ava held a position as an in-house English teacher in a corporate
context, focusing on the development of audio- and video-based English teaching
materials. Taking over the methods subject previously taught by Tayla, Ava was
teaching the subject for the second time in the second half of the study.
Ava is bilingual, speaking Korean and English.
23 There is always a threat to participants’ anonymity when describing their individual teaching context and experience. Therefore,
the information presented in Table 5.1 is deliberately general, but not generic.
130
Institution
Instructor
Class
Background/Experience
Southern
University
(NSW,
Australia)
Ben
D
Ben is a lecturer at Southern University (SU) and holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics.
At the start of the study, Ben had approximately 20 years of teaching experience equally
shared between English teaching and teacher education in TESOL; with experience in
Australia, Japan, and Canada; teaching to a diverse range of students.
In addition to his role as the convenor of a subject focused on English language
assessment, Ben supervises several doctoral students and pursues an active research
agenda in addition to contributing to several professional bodies and being on the
editorial boards of several TESOL-related journals.
Ben’s first language is English, and he speaks Japanese at an intermediate level.
Northern
University
(NSW,
Australia)
Sam
E
Sam holds a post-graduate degree in linguistics.
Upon joining Northern University (NU), Sam had worked as an English teacher, TESOL
instructor and manager in TESOL contexts, including the college attached to NU24.
Sam’s position at NU was a temporary one. During the first half of the study, it was
unclear to Sam whether she would be in the position beyond the midway point of the
study (the end of a 12-month contract). Sam taught the methods subject incorporating
both teaching theory and practicum elements like the methods subject at CU.
Sam left NU and withdrew from the study at the halfway point.
Sam is bilingual, speaking English and Italian.
Zoe
E (1)
Zoe holds a master’s degree in research methods and was a doctoral student at NU at the
same time as teaching into the TESOL program there.
Prior to undertaking doctoral studies, Zoe had considerable experience as an English
language teacher. Her studies in applied linguistics focused on professional development
in TESOL contexts. Like the situation at CU, Zoe joined NU and the study at the
halfway point, replacing Sam and teaching into the methods subject, but shared the
subject with a co-teacher not involved in this study.
Zoe’s first language is English.
Chloe
F
Chloe holds a master’s degree in applied linguistics and submitted her doctoral thesis for
examination during the study.
With considerable experience teaching English as a foreign and second language in
Europe and Australia over 10+ years, Chloe convened the lesson planning and
curriculum subject at NU where she has taught for approximately 6 years. Her subject
teaches students the fundamentals of lesson planning, and different lesson sequences for
the development of receptive and productive skills in English learners.
Chloe is bilingual, speaking Hungarian and English.
The semi-structured interviews with instructor-participants were designed to elicit the motivations
for employing different semiotic resources in their OLT. This is consistent with RQ1 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? The semi-structured
interview questions and prompts are listed in Appendix C.
24 In Australia, it is common for universities to have a college attached to the main institution, which provides various “pathway”
courses for students who need to meet or obtain various prerequisites to study at university. This often includes English language
proficiency for international students who require a minimum score in a test such as IELTS before entering undergraduate study.
131
6.4.2. Themes Emerging from Instructor-Participant Interviews
Two distinct themes25, common to all the instructor-participants emerged from the semi-structured
interviews. The first is instructors’ awareness of the CoI. Instructors speak about aspects of the CoI
framework as it manifests in their practice, even though they may not be familiar with the CoI as a
theoretical framework or, when they use the appropriate terminology to describe a CoI concept, they are
not knowingly using the associated terminology. The second theme concerned the reasons for using
different semiotic resources. During interviews, instructors were asked how and why they used specific
semiotic resources in their OLEs. Responses indicate that, in most but not all cases, a resource was used in
the OLE for pedagogical reasons.
In this section, I present a series of excerpts from the semi-structured interviews organised around
the use or effect of a semiotic resource in the OLE, and instructor actions. When instructors reported
different actions – these were interpreted in terms of how they constituted teaching, social or cognitive
presence. Occasionally, reports of student actions were also interpreted in terms of a CoI presence since all
members of a community of inquiry are able to contribute to each of the presences. Instructors’ descriptions
of their actions were compared to the indicators of presence (e.g., Shea et al, 2010) listed in Appendix B.
Michelle (Classes A & B), for example, mentioned socio-cultural issues that could prevent students from
engaging with each other and disclosing information about themselves in group settings and thus make
group and pair work difficult to facilitate. Here, Michelle demonstrated awareness of self-disclosure
contributing to group cohesion.
Instructor participants were able to describe concepts and situations consistent with the CoI
framework. Mapping of the instructors’ statements to aspects of the CoI necessarily involved interpretation.
Employing the indicators of presence i.e., applying an existing valid and reliable framework to the data,
allowed for excerpts to be categorised in a way that aided in maintaining reliability in interpreting these
data. Further examination of interview transcripts yielded a tally of the number of times each instructor-
participant talked about specific semiotic resources. Quantifying the number of times resources were
discussed in interviews helped focus on which semiotic resources should be highlighted, discussed and
demonstrated in the professional development intervention. In doing so, this helped design an intervention
25 A third theme also emerged that could be termed “online instructor satisfaction and institutional support”. Online instructor
satisfaction is the perception that “the process of teaching in the online environment is efficient, effective and beneficial for the
individual” (Bolliger, Inan & Wasilik, 2014, p. 184). Institutional support, as constructed by Obliger et al. (2014), relates to the
satisfaction derived from the amount, quality and timeliness of support provided by their institutions to assist them in the efficient
design and delivery of online courses (p. 187). The present study isn’t seeking to advocate for online instructors who must deal
with time and workload pressures in addition to teaching (though it would like to). The assumption that the design, development
and delivery of a course in an OLE is little more than copying and pasting content from a face-to-face course to a webpage is
(thankfully) on the decline, thanks in no small part to the COVID19 pandemic of 2020 (semi-structured interviews described here
took place mere weeks before the first outbreaks were reported in The People’s Republic of China). Regardless of the pandemic
and the broader institutional understanding of what it means to provide students with an educational experience online, instructors
face considerable constraints on how the design, development, and delivery of subjects in an OLE play out versus the amount of
time and the resources they have access to.
132
that responded to instructors’ needs rather than offer a generic introduction to the CoI through the lens of
multimodality.
6.4.2.1. Community of Inquiry Awareness
In this pre-intervention stage, Instructor-participants demonstrated a general awareness of the
characteristics of teaching, social and cognitive presence. Instructors described behaviours and situations
congruent with subcategories of the framework. This does not, however, imply that the instructors referred
explicitly to the CoI or used any related terminology from the literature. Overall, in the interviews,
references to behaviours associated with cognitive presence, and awareness of strategies that can be used
in the triggering, exploration, integration and resolution stages of the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM), were
the least prominent of the CoI presences. In particular, resolution, the final stage in the PIM, did not feature
in any of the interviews. While it is difficult to inference why this might be the case, this finding is consistent
with evidence in the literature suggesting that instructors struggle to successfully guide students through
the PIM beyond exploration (Garrison, 2017). As such, cognitive presence and the use of semiotic resources
that support its establishment were considered for inclusion in the professional development intervention.
Table 6.8 Interview Themes (i) – Community of Inquiry Awareness (Teaching Presence)
Interpretation (Indicator, Presence: Subcategory)
Excerpt
In this excerpt, Sam discusses the specific issue they are
having with forums and the use of discussion prompts that is,
the efficacy of the educational process (Richardson et al.,
2012),
Teaching presence: Design & organisation
So, I've been racking my brain on how to make things like
discussion board questions a lot more interesting... Based on
the premise that everyone loves talking about themselves and
based on the premise that we've got to make things as relevant
for the students as we can, I want to try to flip those questions
around so that [students] relate [their answers] back to their
own experience.
- Sam (Class E)
Here, Chloe provides an example of how she provides
aggregated post-assessment feedback to the class,
communicating assessment methods and expectations while
supplying summative feedback for assignments.
Teaching presence: Design & organisation and Assessment
After each assessment I make a PowerPoint of common
mistakes. They don’t change much, so I haven’t changed it in
the past year, and I present it to the class. In the past we didn’t
have Echo360 recordings but now I can screencast it really
quickly with my audio.
- Chloe (Class F)
Michelle notes that focusing discussion on language issues is
important as it provides a model of discussions students will
go on to lead in their own classrooms.
Teaching presence: Facilitating discourse
This is for two reasons: to focus them on how they use and
how they might improve their own language skills, and
because they are going to be English language teachers – it
is a model of the kinds of things they are going to need to say
in their own classes.
Michelle (Class A & B)
Ben describes a situation where managing asynchronous
discussion forum posts is made difficult by time differences
and a lack of extra-linguistic cues for inferring meaning and
intent. This requires shaping constructive exchange and
focusing and resolving issues
Teaching presence: Facilitating discourse
We had a student in [another country] …. I posted something
late at night [that] was worded in a way I didn’t want it to
sound. It was Canagarajah's work about colonialism, so
already a topic that is quite political.
[The student] read in between the lines and said, “That's
unprofessional”. It challenged me [and] I had to fix it. You just
have to fix it, but at least it challenged [the student] and it
challenged me.
- Ben (Class D)
133
Table 6.9 Interview Themes (ii) – Community of Inquiry Awareness (Social Presence)
Interpretation (Indicator, Presence: Subcategory)
Excerpt
Michelle comments on building trust among participants
in a community of inquiry and being comfortable with
one another. This shows awareness of the need for self-
disclosure by the participants (students and instructor).
Social presence: Affective communication
I think [students] find online learning difficult sometimes
because the social element is missing. Our view of
language teaching is a socio-cultural one that puts a
premium on getting students to interact with each other,
but that means they have to be comfortable with each
other.
- Michelle (Class A & B)
Ben shares his experiences of the tendency, as the
semester goes on, for students’ contributions to
discussion forums to decrease, except for a core group
of students who engage in the forums mainly sharing
information unrelated to the course of study.
Social presence: Group Cohesion
[E]ven you know in Week Ten, you might have six seven
eight nine of these 30 that are just close and chat about
[things outside the course] in these forums and then the
rest just never participate.
Ben (Class D)
Tayla brings up the use of emoji in posts and replies in
the OLE. Tayla questions how appropriate emoji use is.
Nevertheless, both Tayla and students use emoji in
expressing emotion and/or humour. While not stated
explicitly, Tayla is also relaying her thoughts on her
identity as an instructor and especially how she projects
herself – another key component to establishing social
presence: the ability to project oneself as “real” in the
OLE (Garrison, 2017).
Social presence: group cohesion and affective
communication
Emojis are informal. It depends on if I'm trying to
change my register between 'professor' or soften it. I am
more likely to mirror a student if they use one first! I
mean… I guess this is one of those examples where the
context and the register you are going for kind of play
an important role. It’s the internet, so emoji are
acceptable, it’s a formal/university context, so you have
to be professional, and emoji might not be acceptable,
it’s a situation where we are trying to treat students
more like colleagues to some extent so it’s acceptable…
are they examples of genuine pragmatics? Could they be
used to persuade? Do students use them to be cute – yes
– does it maybe add to bonding of the group? Maybe…
it’s an interesting question as to “the discourse of
emoji” ….
Tayla (Class C)
Here, Sam is cognizant of the need to help students
build that sense of cohesion among the group right from
the beginning of the semester. The kind of self-
disclosure described here is one where students are
introducing themselves.
Social presence: Affective communication
I set up for [the students] to do a PowerPoint
presentation, introducing themselves, and then stick a
photo of themselves and their hobbies […] that kind of
thing, so they could get to know each other.
Sam (Class E)
134
Table 6.10 Interview Themes (iii) – Community of Inquiry Awareness (Cognitive Presence)
Interpretation (Indicator, Presence: Subcategory)
Excerpt
Ben’s approach of taking discussion in a new direction
is the kind of socio-cultural process that Shea et al.
(2010) identify as being closely related to the
Triggering event – Phase One of the Practical Inquiry
Model. This provides students with a sense of
puzzlement or gets them to recognise a problem that
needs a solution.
Cognitive presence. Triggering Event
Online, I really have to get into these forums and I'm
not really posting content, but I'm on it, I often ask
questions, I probe and I... Sort of tickle students a little
bit and said, look this is OK, but what about this? And
then I'm more of a, like, I want to ignite sort of fire,
yeah, and then get them to think about things.
Ben (Class D)
First, Tayla is setting the curriculum in a broad sense,
communicating important information about the
learning that will take place.
Teaching presence: Design and organisation.
The topic or theme is information that may culminate
in a question, present a problem, or highlight a
(discipline-specific) issue.
Cognitive presence: Triggering event
My aim on a Wednesday night is usually to introduce
the topic or theme of the week…
provide them with the theory or an idea of what we are
talking about…
[and] what they are going to learn.
Tayla (Class C)
Chloe talks about providing students with an
(authentic) model of classroom interaction patterns to
the benefit of (students’) lesson planning. These are
information exchanges, and suggestions for
consideration. This helps students to understand the
nature of the issue before them and to start to search for
relevant information needed to “solve the problem”.
Cognitive presence: Exploration
They can have a look at a model of the interaction
patterns. It actually focuses them on the patterns as
well…how important they are in [lesson] planning.
Chloe (Class F)
Ben places a premium on the use of critical thinking
techniques to have students consider the application
(and implication) of solutions they have created for
real-teaching contexts. Subsequently, students share
and explicitly characterise their findings as a
“solution” to the problem that has been set. These are
both indicators of Phase Three of the Practical
Inquiry Model.
Cognitive presence: Integration
At the postgraduate level…I’m big on the [use] of
those forums. Those allow [a] critical reflection type
of task.
Ben (Class D)
135
6.4.2.2. Type & Function of Semiotic Resources
Further analysis of interview data reveals that instructor-participants explicitly described 11
different semiotic resources, or ensembles of resources such as videoconferencing, present in the OLEs at
the time of the interview or in previous iterations of their OLEs, or their intention to add one or more in
future versions. The 11 semiotic resources identified by the five instructor-participants were:
• Animation
• Charts, Diagrams, and Tables
• Videoconferencing
• Colour
• Headings
• Icon
• Layout
• Moving Image (Video)
• Photographs
• Semiotic Software (e.g., H5P, VoiceThread, Echo360)
• Typography
Questions about these eleven semiotic resources were integrated into the modified CoI survey where
students were asked to identify which they believe are contributing to teaching, social and cognitive
presence in their OLE. This also serves as a foundation for discussing semiotic resources in the professional
development intervention.
Obviously, the instructor-participants had some knowledge of these resources. A further
examination of interview transcripts provided an opportunity to identify which semiotic resources the
different instructors spoke about. In addition to being able to visualise interview content, quantifying the
discussion was useful in terms of revealing whether there were differences between instructors in Australia
versus Korea, or between instructors at the same institution. This demonstrated that the LMS had less
impact on instructors’ choices than first thought.
Figure 6.9 shows the frequency with which different instructors talked about different resources.
The X axis lists the 11 semiotic resources. The size of each bar represents the frequency with which each
of the instructor-participants discussed the semiotic resources. What we find is that the two instructor-
participants from Northern University, Chloe (Class E) and Sam (Class F), discussed resources from the
above list almost twice as much as the other three instructor-participants. The reason or reasons why this
might be the case are explored in the next chapter. The responses here, student responses to the CoI survey,
and observation from the content analysis, informed the design of the professional development
intervention in the second stage of the study.
136
Figure 6.9 Frequency of Discussion of Semiotic Resources – All instructors (Pre-intervention)
6.4.2.3. Discussion of Function in Interviews
In addition to naming certain semiotic resources, instructor-participants were able to describe the
ways in which semiotic resources function within the OLE. As a term, “function” helps us describe how
instructors exploited semiotic resources in the OLE (cf. RQ1) in different ways. For example, all the
instructors agreed that semiotic software such as H5P, (Joubel, 2022) that supports the creation of
interactive tasks within the OLE, functioned primarily in an instructional role as the task created related to
students interacting with subject content. When asked if a task in H5P could have a discoursal/affective
function, instructors who used H5P noted that if the task asked students to respond to a video text, for
example, and/or incorporated relevant (emotional) discourse. Figure 6.10 presents a visualisation of
discussion during interviews that centred on the function of different semiotic resources. Instructors noted
that layout could be construed as serving an instructional purpose, was important to the “look” of the OLE
and was also related to students being able to navigate the OLE.
Michelle
Tayla
Ben
Sam
Chloe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Michelle Tayla Ben Sam Chloe
137
Figure 6.10 Frequency of Discussion of Semiotic Resource Function – All Instructors (Stage One)
Regarding photographs, four out of the five instructors reported that one or more photographs in
the OLE were ‘legacy images’ or left over in the OLE from an instructor who had taught the subject
previously. This type of photograph did not fulfil any sort of function in the iteration of an OLE they were
using other than aesthetics according to the instructors. Such images did not conflict with but did not
contribute to anything the current instructor believed or wanted to portray in the OLE but remained in the
OLE until the instructor had time to remove it or was prompted to due to a change in the LMS, a change to
institutional processes or a change in policy.
The term legacy image, as it came to be called, applies mostly to photographs and occasionally to
illustrations based on the examples discussed by instructors. The term doesn’t apply to images that “carried
over” from previous iterations of the OLE that continue to be used actively as part of teaching content.
While it is supposition on my part, it doesn’t seem to apply to other kinds of semiotic resource – no instances
of legacy video or audio, for example, were observed in the OLEs or mentioned by these instructors. Video
is unlikely to be considered “legacy” because it is a mode that engenders more scrutiny from an instructor
taking on a new subject. If video was made by and/or features the previous instructor, it is likely to be
removed. If it is a video. Instructors did not indicate that they believed there was anything other than an
aesthetic function behind the use of colour in the OLE. Finally, instructors defined layout as predetermined
organisation of content in the OLE, using or combining semiotic resources, but within the restrictions
prescribed by the institution or by the limitations imposed by the learning management system. The primary
function of layout was difficult to intuit since they did not articulate anything beyond “organisation of
content”. However, as a group, instructor-participants discussed layout far more often in terms of its
instructional function, over aesthetic, navigational and discoursal/affective functions.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Navigational Discoursal/Affective Aesthetic Instructional
138
Table 6.11 Discussion of Semiotic Resources & Function – Pre-intervention Semi Structured Interviews
Semiotic
Resource Primary Function Secondary Function Additional Notes
Video
Instructional
The use of video to illustrate classroom scenarios and
provide examples of ESL and EFL classroom
discourse is a well-established practice in TESOL.
Put another way, video is used to “bring the
classroom to the students”. Instructor-participants
talked about video fulfilling an instructional function,
to show examples, and especially to provide semi-
authentic models of classroom practice.
Instructors disclosed that they used video to model
teacher student interaction, error correction, and
global Englishes.
Discoursal/Affective
Video can be used in the OLEs to prompt a
discussion or elicit opinions. As a TESOL Method,
instructors recalled the efficiency of video to set
context and activate schema (and even break down
the so-called affective barrier [Krashen, 1985]).
Tayla (Class C) and Sam (Class E) noted their use of
video to “Hook in students” when delivering subject
content.
Video is an example of a semiotic resource that could
be used to establish cognitive presence: Triggering
event (Garrison, 2017).
The primary and secondary functions of video can
change depending on the desired learning outcome.
Photographs
Discoursal/affective
Instructors noted the potential for photos to elicit
strong discoursal/affective responses from students
Instructional
Instructors all agreed that photos have the potential to
be instructional, especially when accompanying
written language
Like video, the primary function of photos will
change depending on the desired learning outcomes.
Photos (and illustrations) also have the potential to
have an aesthetic function adding to the overall look
of the OLE.
Charts &
Diagrams26
Instructional
Instructors were unanimous in their description of
charts and diagrams as fulfilling an instructional
function in the OLE, communicating content, and
usually accompanying written language.
Instructors noted that a chart or diagram can add to
the OLE aesthetically, but that the instructional
function charts and diagrams fulfil is the most
important. Four out of five instructors suggested that
a chart or diagram, despite portraying content
information, could fulfil a discoursal or affective
function if students were asked to respond to it in
some way and, especially, if it contained unexpected
or controversial information.
26 For ease of counting and discussion, I categorise charts and diagrams together as types of images that have the potential to communicate what could be considered technical information such as results or
processes. That said, I have to acknowledge that charts and diagrams are two distinct and very complex examples of semiotic resource ensembles.
139
Semiotic
Resource Primary Function Secondary Function Additional Notes
Icons
Navigational
The ability for a semiotic resource to fulfil a
navigational function first arose in the interviews
with instructors. All of the instructors noted that icons
allowed students to find information quickly on the
page.
Instructional
According to instructors, the ability of icons to
function instructionally depends on their quality.
Ambiguous icons or worse, icons that are too similar
quickly loose utility to support students.
Ben (Class D) noted the usefulness of the icons
chosen by the educational designer in communicating
different task types.
Instructors whose OLEs existed within Google
Classroom noted the icons inserted by the LMS
provided students with a useful indication of what a
post is about or what kind of document they might
encounter.
Instructors at Northern University lamented their
inability to change the default icons.
The aesthetic value of icons was not considered
during discussions.
Colour
Aesthetic
Discussion of colour centred around its primary
aesthetic function across all of the OLEs, despite the
potential for colour to convey meaning
Two of the five instructors noted that there could be a
discoursal/affective function to colour.
All of the instructors noted that they had little control
over colour in their OLE, colours that did appear
were defaults that they couldn’t change. That there
should be some uniformity across OLEs at an
institution was brought up by all of the instructors as
well.
Layout
Navigational
Instructor-participants discussed layout with some
frequency and, it should be said, some conviction. On
the face of it, discussion concerned the navigational
function of layout.
Sam (Class F) said she would prefer not only the
same colours but a template that might reduce the
time needed for organising the OLE at the beginning
of the teaching session.
Ben (Class D), on the other hand, benefitted from the
support of a central unit working with a template, but
in doing so gave up some of the control he had over
colour, and other resources, as the bulk of the
development of the OLE was handled by the
educational designers.
140
6.5 The Community of Inquiry Survey
This section reports the third component of the pre-intervention stage – the results of the CoI survey
administered to students in the six OLEs included in this study, at the end of 2019.The survey was a move
capturing the thoughts and perceptions of students – reminiscent of the shift from content analysis to survey
instrument in CoI research after 2008 (see §2.5.). In this section I report the results of the modified CoI
survey:
• Students’ perceptions of the different presences and presence subcategories as measured by their
responses to 34 statements about their experience in the OLE.
• The CoI presences manifested in each OLE
• The semiotic resources students perceived as contributing to establishing and maintaining each of
the CoI presences.
Table 6.12 Student-Participants (Pre-Intervention)
Demographic Information
n
%
Gender
Male
7
12
Female
51
88
Age
18-24
2
3.4
25-30
16
27.6
31-35
21
36.2
36-40
11
19
41-55
8
13.8
Attendance Mode
On-campus
42
72.4
Online only
16
27.6
Residence
Australia
19
32.7
Asia
38
65.6
Other*
1
1.7
English Language
First language
15
25.8
Second language
43
74.2
Highest Qualification
Diploma/Associate degree
3
5.2
Undergraduate degree
38
65.5
Post-graduate degree
17
29.3
Total Respondents
58
100
The survey results provide insight into students’ perceptions about how semiotic resources are used to
support OTL consistent with RQ1. At the end of 2019, participation in this study was solicited from students
enrolled in the subjects taught by the instructor-participants. Using the criteria for recruitment to participate
in the study listed in Chapter 4 – Methodology, a total of 206 students across six subjects were invited to
participate in the survey. 58 students were recruited yielding a response rate of 28.1%.
141
Before responding to the 34 statements relating to each CoI subcategory, student-participants
responded to a series of demographic questions. The responses to demographic questions are summarised
in Table 6.12.
6.6. Results: Responses to the CoI Statements
The CoI survey is made up of 34 statements to which respondents indicate their level of agreement
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (rated 0) to strongly agree (rated 5), as well as
being able to answer, "I don't know”. A response had to be made to each survey item before progressing to
the next. In analysing the data from the survey, the mean responses for the 34 items ranged from 2.83 for I
felt comfortable disagreeing with other students while still being professional and maintaining a sense of
trust (Item 20) to 3.69 for Problems and questions posed in the subject increased my interest in issues in
TESOL (Item 23). Standard deviations were highest for Item 20 (S.D=0.86) and lowest for Item 23
(S.D=0.5). The mean score and standard deviation for each of the Community of Inquiry presences are
outlined in Table 6.13.
Table 6.13 Presence Items Mean Scores (Pre-intervention)
Presence
Mean
Std. Deviation
Teaching Presence
3.43
0.70
Social Presence
3.16
0.77
Cognitive Presence
2.60
0.62
There is very little variation among the responses provided by the students from across the six
courses. Looking at individual items, deviation does occur between Classes A – F, but it is minimal for
questions relating to the CoI presences and their subcategories. (However, note that the standard deviation
for Item 20 of S.D.=0.86 [reported at the beginning of this section] is the largest among all the questions).
On the whole, the six classes were in agreement, even though the students were recruited from three
different institutions, across two countries, and had been taught by five different instructors (with the
exception of Classes A and B, which were both taught by Michelle). Because there was little variation in
the responses between individual classes, this section presents the combined results of the CoI Survey.
6.6.1. Teaching Presence
The largest number of survey questions pertaining to any one presence in the CoI survey is 13, and
these are geared towards measuring respondents’ perceptions and feelings toward teaching presence in an
OLE. Teaching presence represents all the things instructors “do”, before, during and after the delivery of
lesson content. These are the actions of any appropriately qualified and/or experienced teacher and apply
equally in fully online, blended or traditional face-to-face teaching and learning contexts. However, it is
worth reiterating that in the CoI anyone can take on the role of a teacher. The statements in the Teaching
presence section are organised by subcategory so that Items 1 to 4 speak to design and organisation, Five
to Ten to discourse facilitation, and Eleven to Thirteen to direct instruction.
142
6.6.1.1. Design & Organisation.
Most respondents agreed with Items 1 to 4which relate specifically to design and organisation, as
shown in Figure 6.11. Between 51 and 54 of the 58 respondents (89 – 93%) indicated that they somewhat
agreed or strongly agreed with each item, which is unsurprising given the education, experience, and
outlook of the instructor-participants. By contrast, disagreement was particularly low, with each statement
garnering between one and three responses (5%) somewhat or strongly disagreeing.
Figure 6.11 Design & Organisation (Teaching Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
6.6.1.2. Discourse facilitation.
The level of agreement among respondents to items on discourse facilitation was high, with
between 81 and 90% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreeing with Items 5 to 10. At the same time,
responses somewhat or strongly disagreeing with these items were 5% or less. Neutral responses were
higher for Items 5 and 10, with approximately 14% of respondents indicating neither agreement or
disagreement, while neutral responses to other items on discourse facilitation sat at 8% or below. The
increase in neutral responses is shown in Figure 6.12.
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
18
18
15
14
36
36
36
39
1
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The instructor clearly communicated the important
course topics.
2. The instructor clearly communicated important
course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to
participate in online activities (e.g. where and how to
submit assignments).
4. The instructor clearly communicated important due
dates and time frames for online activities (e.g. dates for
assignments).
Design and Organisation
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
143
Figure 6.12 Discourse Facilitation (Teaching Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
6.6.1.3. Direct instruction
The final three statements about teaching presence relate to direct instruction. Again, the level of
agreement among respondents is relatively high, with most respondents somewhat agreeing (approx. 40%
- 47%) or strongly agreeing (approx. 43% - 47%). Figure 6.13 illustrates how the majority agreement was
characterised by an even split between the two positions. Fewer respondents overall indicated that they felt
neutral towards statements on direct instruction. 7% or less of responses indicated any level of disagreement
with items related to direct instruction.
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
8
3
3
5
5
8
27
29
32
29
26
25
20
23
19
21
23
20
1
1
1
1
1
2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5. The instructor helped me to understand where there are
agreements and disagreements in the theory in this course.
6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards
understanding course topics in a way that helped me think
about them clearly.
7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged
and participating in productive dialogue (e.g. in
forums/Q&A posts or comments).
8. The instructor helped keep students on task in a way that
helped me to learn.
9. The instructor encouraged students to explore new concepts
in this course.
10. The Instructor developed a sense of community among
students in this course.
Discourse facilitation
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
144
Figure 6.13 Direct Instruction (Teaching Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
Overall, a high level of teaching presence was perceived across the six OLEs included in this study.
Finally, one to two responses (approx. 3.5%) for each item in the teaching presence section were “didn’t
know". As the survey was anonymous, it was unclear whether these responses came from the same
respondent.
6.6.2. Social Presence
Items 14 – 22 of the survey relate to social presence and the subcategories of affective
communication (Items 14 – 16), open communication (Items 17 – 19), and group cohesion (Items 20-22).
6.6.2.1. Affective expression
Between 11% and 19% of responses to items about affective communication were neutral, yet the
only change in the level of disagreement compared to the section on teaching presence was for Item 16
Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction, where approximately
9% of responses somewhat disagreed and approximately 4% strongly disagreed. By contrast, 33% of
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
27
23
23
25
27
26
1
2
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11. The instructor helped to focus discussion (e.g. in
forums) on important topics in a way that helped me to
learn.
12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me
understand my strengths and weaknesses and this was
connected to the course goals and objectives.
13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.
Direct Instruction
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
145
respondents somewhat agreed with Items 14 – 16, while between 41.4% and 46.6% of respondents strongly
agreed. Responses to affective communication items are illustrated in Figure 6.14.
Figure 6.14 Affective Expression (Social Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
6.6.2.2. Open communication
Survey Items 17 – 19 related to open communication also elicited a broad level of agreement.
However, there was an increased number of neutral responses, 24.5% for interacting with their peers (Item
19) and 19% for participating in discussions (Item 18). Conversely, 38% of responses somewhat agreed
and 39.7% of respondents strongly agreed that they were comfortable communicating online (Item 17).
Item 18 garnered an identical 36.3% of responses somewhat and strongly agreeing, and Item 19 saw 34.5%
of respondents somewhat agree and approximately 30% strongly agree. These results are illustrated in
Figure 6.15.
1
2
2
1
2
5
10
11
6
18
18
18
27
24
26
1
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a
sense of belonging in the course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some
course participants.
16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent
medium for social interaction.
Affective Expression
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
146
Figure 6.15 Open Communication (Social Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
6.6.2.3. Group Cohesion
Items 20, 21 and 22 relate to social presence subcategory of group cohesion. These items received
a more even distribution of responses. In response to Statement 20 regarding students’ level of comfort in
disagreeing with their peers, 28% of students somewhat disagreed. In response to Item 21, whether students
felt their points of view were acknowledged by their peers, 14% indicated some disagreement, while a
further 2% strongly disagreed. Item 22, students’ perceptions of discussion as a way of developing
collaboration, saw 10.5% of responses somewhat disagree. Neutral responses to items on group cohesion
ranged from 24.3% for Item 20 to 33% for Item 22. The differences in disagreeing and neutral responses
are illustrated in Figure 6.16. Despite the number of responses disagreeing with survey items related to
group cohesion, most respondents still somewhat or strongly agreed with Statements 21 and 22.
1
5
4
6
6
11
14
22
21
20
23
21
17
2
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
17. Overall, I felt comfortable communicating online.
18. I felt comfortable participating in the course
discussions (e.g. discussing content and theory in forums).
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other students in the
course (e.g. responding to their posts or asking questions).
Open Communication
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
147
Figure 6.16 Group Cohesion (Social Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
In the social presence section, one or two responses (approx. 3.5%) for each item were “I don’t
know".
6.6.3. Cognitive Presence
Items 23 – 34 relate to cognitive presence, specifically the stages of the PIM: triggering event
(Items 23 – 25), exploration (Items 26 – 28), integration (Items 29 – 31), and resolution (Items 32 – 34).
6.6.3.1. Triggering & Exploration
While the statements in previous sections of the survey elicited agreement from respondents, that
agreement was (evenly) split between ‘somewhat agree’ and ‘strongly agree’. Here, at least half of
respondents (between 50% and 64%) strongly agreed with Items 23 – 27, about triggering and exploration.
Respondents somewhat agreed (19%) and strongly agreed (46.6%) with Item 28 concerning the perceived
value of online discussion to help appreciate and synthesise points of view. Item 28 also received the highest
number of neutral responses (22.5%). Finally, approximately 7% of respondents indicated that they
disagreed with Items 23 – 28. Responses for items related to triggering and exploration are illustrated in
Figure 6.17.
1
2
1
16
8
6
14
16
19
13
17
16
11
13
15
3
2
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other students
while still being professional and maintaining a sense of
trust.
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by
other students.
22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of
collaboration.
Group Cohesion
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
148
Figure 6.17 Triggering Event & Exploration (Cognitive Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
6.6.3.2. Integration & Resolution
The final section in the CoI Survey relates to the integration and resolution stages of the PMI. The
majority of respondents agreed with these items, with 43.2% or more of respondents strongly agreeing. The
number of neutral responses remained low at between 5% and 9% of responses. Each of the Items 29 – 34
received a single ‘strongly disagree’ response. Responses to this final section in the CoI Survey are
summarised in Figure 6.18.
1
1
4
2
3
1
3
5
1
4
8
5
13
14
23
14
13
18
11
37
29
37
33
32
27
1
1
1
1
1
4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
23. Problems and questions posed in the subject
increased my interest issues in TESOL.
24. Subject activities made me curious about theory etc.
25. I felt motivated to explore content related to the
course.
26. I used a variety of information sources to explore
problems and answer questions posed in this course.
27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information
helped me solve content-related questions and
problems.
28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me
appreciate different points of view.
Triggering Event & Exploration
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
149
Figure 6.18 Integration & Resolution (Cognitive Presence) - All Students (Pre-Intervention)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
4
5
3
18
21
24
28
22
26
32
32
29
25
30
25
1
1
3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
29. Combining new information helped me answer
problems and questions asked in course activities.
30. Learning activities helped me explain ideas and
create solutions.
31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped
me understand the most important concepts in this
class.
32. I can describe ways to apply the knowledge created
in this course (e.g. how this knowledge could be used in
my own [future] English classroom).
33. The answers and solutions to course tasks and
activities I have found can be applied in my own [future]
English classroom.
34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to
my work or non-class related activities.
Integration & Resolution
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
150
6.7. Presences & Their Subcategories for Each Class
The results of the CoI survey showed some consistency in responses across the six classes. Students
responded in a predominantly positive way, agreeing with statements about how they perceive teaching
presence and cognitive presence in their respective OLEs. Responses for social presence, however, were
more diverse, especially when each of its subcategories is considered. Examining the responses at the
subcategory-level allowed me to identify aspects of the CoI framework that should reinforced in the
professional development intervention. This section presents the mean responses to each of the survey items
discussed above but organised by class (A – E) in two radar charts for each class. The first radar chart uses
the combined mean responses for all three CoI presences to visualise the level of each presence in the class.
The second radar chart breaks these down by presenting the mean responses for each of the 10 CoI
subcategories. For both, values closer to the outside of the chart indicate a high level of presence or
subcategory. The mean scores in a radar chart illustrate a measure of the CoI presences and subcategories
manifest in the OLE. These data could be used to aid instructors in reflecting on their practice in the OLE
as examined through the lens of the CoI
6.7.1. Class A CoI Presences (Pre-intervention)
The extent to which a community of inquiry exists in Class A, taught by Michelle, is shown in
Figures 6.19a and 6.19b and Table 6.14. These show that student-participants perceived cognitive presence
as strongest in the OLE with a mean student response in the CoI survey of 3.46. Teaching presence was
similar at a mean response of 3.45, while social presence was 3.36. Examining the presence subcategories
shows us that, in the case of Class A, the mean student response for group cohesion, sense of belonging to
a group within the community in the subject/course, was lowest at a mean response of 3.14, followed by
discourse facilitation (mean student response, 3.39), open communication (3.43), direct instruction and
integration and resolution (both 3.45), triggering and exploration (3.46), affective expression (3.48), and
design and organisation (mean response of 3.54).
Figure 6.19a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class A (Pre-intervention)
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Stage One
151
Figure 6.19b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class A (Pre-intervention)
Table 6.14 Community of Inquiry – Class A (Pre-Intervention)
6.7.2. Class B CoI Presences (Pre-intervention)
The extent to which a CoI exists in Class B is shown in Figure 6.20a and 6.20b and Table 6.15.
Consistent with Class A, Class B (also taught by Michelle) student-participants perceived Cognitive
presence as strongest in the OLE with a mean student response of 3.36. Teaching presence received a mean
student response of 3.08, and social presence a mean student response of 3.00. Group cohesion had the
lowest mean student response (2.75), followed by direct instruction (3.00), discourse facilitation (3.04),
open communication (3.05), affective expression (3.17), design and organisation (3.21), triggering and
exploration (3.25) and, finally, integration and resolution (3.46).
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Expression
Open Communication
Group Cohesionn
Trigger & Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
Stage One
Presence
Mean
Presence
Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
3.45
Design & Organisation
3.54
Discourse Facilitation
3.39
Direct Instruction
3.45
Social
3.36
Affective Expression
3.48
Open Communication
3.43
Group Cohesion
3.14
Cognitive
3.46
Trigger & Exploration
3.46
Integration &
Resolution
3.45
152
Figure 6.20a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class B (Pre-Intervention
Figure 6.20b Community of Inquiry Subcategories– Class B (Pre-Intervention)
Table 6.15 Community of Inquiry – Class B (Pre-Intervention)
Presence
Mean
Presence
Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
3.08
Design & Organisation
3.21
Discourse Facilitation
3.04
Direct Instruction
3.00
Social
3.00
Affective Expression
3.17
Open Communication
3.05
Group Cohesion
2.75
Cognitive
3.36
Trigger & Exploration
3.25
Integration &
Resolution
3.46
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Stage One
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Design &
Organisation
Discourse
Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Expression
Open
Communication
Group Cohesionn
Trigger and
Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
Stage One
153
6.7.3. Class C CoI Presences (Pre-intervention)
In Class C, taught by Tayla, a similar pattern emerged, with the mean student response shifting
away from social presence (3.55) and towards cognitive presence (3.63) and teaching presence (3.68). Of
the presence subcategories, the highest mean student response was for design and organisation (3.82). This
was followed by affective expression (3.76), triggering and exploration (3.68), discourse facilitation,
integration and resolution (3.58), direct instruction (3.56), open communication (3.5), and finally, group
cohesion had the lowest mean student response (3.33). Class C mean student responses are captured in
Figure 6.21a, 6.21b and Table 6.16.
Figure 6.21a Community of Inquiry Presences– Class C (Pre-Intervention)
Figure 6.21b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class C (Pre-Intervention)
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Stage One
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Expression
Open Communication
Group Cohesionn
Trigger and Exploration
Integration & Resolution
Stage One
154
Table 6.16 Community of Inquiry – Class C (Pre-Intervention)
6.7.4. Class D CoI Presences (Pre-intervention)
Class D, taught by Ben, saw a similar pattern to Classes A, B and C, with mean student responses
of 3.45 for cognitive presence, 3.39 for teaching presence, and a relatively lower mean response of 3.13 for
social presence. These are illustrated in Figure 6.22a, 6.22b and Table 6.17. The lower mean response for
social presence was related to the low mean responses for the group cohesion (2.80) and affective
expression (3.17) subcategories, while open communication had a higher mean student response of 3.31.
Discourse facilitation had a mean student response of 3.20, followed in ascending order by direct instruction
(3.27), integration and resolution (3.31), triggering and exploration (3.62) and, finally, design and
organisation (3.76).
Figure 6.22a Community of Inquiry Presences– Class D (Pre-intervention)
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Stage One
Presence
Mean
Presence Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
3.68
Design & Organisation
3.82
Discourse Facilitation
3.65
Direct Instruction
3.56
Social
3.55
Affective Expression
3.76
Open Communication
3.50
Group Cohesion
3.33
Cognitive
3.63
Trigger and Exploration
3.68
Integration & Resolution
3.58
155
Figure 6.22b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class D (Pre-Intervention)
Table 6.17 Community of Inquiry – Class D (Pre-Intervention)
6.7.5. Class E CoI Presences (Pre-intervention
Social presence was again the presence with the lowest mean student response in Class E, at 3.35,
while teaching presence had a mean student response of 3.52 and cognitive presence a mean student
response of 3.71. Class E displayed the same sort of skew towards cognitive and teaching presence and
away from social presence as Classes A, B and D, and to a lesser extent Class C, as illustrated in Figure
6.23a, 6.23b and Table 6.18. Group cohesion was again the presence subcategory with the lowest mean
student response (3.06), followed in ascending order by open communication (3.23), discourse facilitation
(3.38), direct instruction (3.57), integration and resolution (3.65), design and organisation (3.66), affective
expression (3.70), and triggering and exploration (3.77).
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Expression
Open Communication
Group Cohesionn
Trigger and Exploration
Integration & Resolution
Stage One
Presence
Mean
Presence Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
3.39
Design & Organisation
3.76
Discourse Facilitation
3.20
Direct Instruction
3.27
Social
3.13
Affective Expression
3.17
Open Communication
3.31
Group Cohesion
2.80
Cognitive
3.45
Trigger and Exploration
3.62
Integration & Resolution
3.31
156
Figure 6.23a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class E (Pre-Intervention)
Figure 6.23b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class E (Pre-Intervention)
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Teaching Presence
Social Presence
Cognitive
Presence
Stage One
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Expression
Open Communication
Group Cohesionn
Trigger and Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
Stage One
157
Table 6.18 Community of Inquiry – Class E (Pre-Intervention)
6.7.6. Class F CoI Presences (Pre-intervention)
Finally, in Class F, the mean student responses for the presences were teaching presence (3.42),
social presence (2.93) and cognitive presence (3.59). As with the other classes, students’ perception of their
OLE and the learning that takes place in it favoured cognitive presence at the expense of social presence.
In terms of the presence subcategories, design and organisation had the highest mean student response
(3.60), followed by integration and resolution (3.55), triggering and exploration (3.50), direct instruction
(3.46), discourse facilitation (3.26), affective expression (3.14), open communication (3.00), and group
cohesion last (2.35). These mean student responses are captured in Figure 6.24a, 6.24b and Table 16.19.
Figure 6.24a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class F (Pre-Intervention)
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Stage One
Presence
Mean
Presence Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
3.52
Design & Organisation
3.66
Discourse Facilitation
3.38
Direct Instruction
3.57
Social
3.35
Affective Expression
3.70
Open Communication
3.23
Group Cohesion
3.06
Cognitive
3.71
Trigger and Exploration
3.77
Integration & Resolution
3.65
158
Figure 6.24b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class F (Pre-Intervention)
Table 6.19 Community of Inquiry – Class F (Pre-Intervention)
Presence
Mean
Presence Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
3.42
Design & Organisation
3.60
Discourse Facilitation
3.26
Direct Instruction
3.46
Social
2.93
Affective Expression
3.14
Open Communication
3.00
Group Cohesion
2.35
Cognitive
3.59
Trigger and Exploration
3.50
Integration & Resolution
3.55
6.7.7. Classes A – F CoI Presences (Pre-intervention)
Figure 6.25a reports the mean scores for responses to the CoI survey for each of the OLEs. Class
C has the highest mean scores for both teaching presence (3.68) and social presence (3.55) while Class E
saw the highest mean score for cognitive presence (3.71).
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Expression
Open Communication
Group Cohesionn
Trigger and Exploration
Integration & Resolution
Stage One
159
Figure 6.25a Community of Inquiry Presences – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention)
The results at the presence level are reflected in the subcategories with Class C having the highest
mean scores for design and organisation (3.82) and discourse facilitation (3.65), while Class E had the
highest men score for direct instruction (3.57). Class C had the highest mean scores for all of the social
presence subcategories: affective communication (3.76), open communication (3.50) and group cohesion
(3.33). Class E had the highest mean score for both triggering event and exploration (3.77) and integration
and resolution (3.65). These results are reported in Figure 6.25b and summarised in Table 6.20a and 6.20b.
Figure 6.25b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention)
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
A B C D E F
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
Design and Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Communication
Open Communication
Group Cohesion
Triggering and Exploration
Integration & Resolution
A B C D E F
160
Table 6.20a Community of Inquiry – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention)
Mean
A
B
C
D
E
F
Teaching Presence
3.45
3.08
3.68
3.39
3.52
3.42
Social Presence
3.36
3.00
3.55
3.13
3.35
2.93
Cognitive Presence
3.46
3.36
3.63
3.45
3.71
3.59
Note. indicates lowest mean score, indicates highest mean score.
Table 6.20b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – Class A – F (Pre-Intervention)
Mean
A
B
C
D
E
F
Design and Organisation
3.54
3.21
3.82
3.76
3.66
3.60
Discourse Facilitation
3.39
3.04
3.65
3.20
3.38
3.26
Direct Instruction
3.45
3.00
3.56
3.27
3.57
3.46
Affective
Communication
3.48
3.17
3.76
3.17
3.70
3.14
Open Communication
3.43
3.05
3.50
3.31
3.23
3.00
Group Cohesion
3.14
2.75
3.33
2.80
3.06
2.35
Triggering and
Exploration
3.46
3.25
3.68
3.62
3.77
3.50
Integration & Resolution
3.45
3.46
3.58
3.31
3.65
3.55
Note. indicates lowest mean score, indicates highest mean score.
6.8. Student Perceptions of Semiotic Resources Contributing to Presences
The modified CoI survey also asked student-participants to indicate from a list of semiotic
resources which they thought were used or helped to establish each of the presence subcategories in their
OLEs. The semiotic resources included in the survey were those identified during the instructor-participant
interviews and the content analysis of the six OLEs:
1. Typography
2. Layout
3. Icons and emoji
4. Photos and images
5. Graphs, figures, and charts
6. Video
7. Audio
8. Being mentioned by name
9. Opportunities for private chat between the student and instructor native to the OLE (i.e., not
email or communication tools on different platforms)
10. Opportunities for synchronous (live) videoconferencing
11. Personalised video content (i.e., addressed specifically to the class or an individual)
12. Written instruction
13. Overall design and organisation of the site
161
Student-participants also had the option to add “other” semiotic resources as well as respond “I
don’t know”. Students were able to choose more than one semiotic resource if they believed multiple
resources contributed to a given subcategory. In this section, I present students’ responses as organised by
presence subcategory.
6.8.1. Teaching Presence
6.8.1.1. Design and Organisation
In relation to the semiotic resources contributing to design and organisation, students were asked,
“For Items 1 - 4: What did the instructor use to communicate important information about the unit/subject
online? (Choose all that apply)”. Collectively, respondents selected the overall design of the OLE 45 times
as the semiotic resource contributing most to the design and organisation subcategory of teaching presence.
This was closely followed by written instructions which was selected 44 times. Video content was identified
33 times as contributing to design and organisation. Photos and images, typography, and layout were
identified 32 times. Students identified personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread) as contributing to
design and organisation 23 times, followed by graphs, figures, and charts (16), Icons and emoji (14), and
mentions of people by name (10). Finally, private chat (7), live videoconference (5), and audio content (4)
were the least identified semiotic resources.
Figure 6.26 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Design & Organisation (All Students) Pre-
Intervention
0510 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
I don't know
Audio content
Live videoconferencing
Private chat
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Icons & emoji
Graphs, figures, and charts
Personalised video content
Layout
Typography
Photos and images
Video content
Written Instructions
Overall design and organisation of the site
1
4
5
7
10
14
16
23
32
32
32
33
44
45
162
6.8.1.2. Discourse Facilitation
For the semiotic resources contributing to discourse facilitation, students were asked, “For Items 5
- 10: What did the instructor use to facilitate discussion between you and your classmates online? Did they
use any of the things below to indicate agreement or disagreement between you and your classmates online?
Did the instructor use any of the following to help you understand the concepts being discussed online?
(Choose all that apply)”. Student-participants identified the overall design and organisation of the OLE 44
times, as the most prominent semiotic resource contributing to discourse facilitation, with the next most
identified semiotic resources being written instructions (36) and photos and images (32). Video content and
layout were both identified 29 times by students as contributing to discourse facilitation. Typography (23),
graphs, figures and charts (17), personalised video content (15), icons and emoji (14) and mentioning
people by name (11), round out the top ten semiotic resources. These are followed by opportunities for
private chat (9), audio content (8) and live videoconferencing (8). The semiotic resources student-
participants perceived as contributing to discourse facilitation are illustrated in Figure 6.27.
Figure 6.27 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Discourse Facilitation (All Students) Pre-
Intervention
6.8.1.3. Direct Instruction
Here, students were asked, “For Items 11 - 13: What did the instructor use to focus discussion and
provide feedback online? (Choose all that apply)”. Of all of the subcategories of presence, there is the
potential for subject specific factors to influence direct instruction since this subcategory speaks directly to
content. Written instructions were perceived by student-participants as the semiotic resource most
0510 15 20 25 30 35 40
I don't know
Live videoconferencing
Audio content
Private chat
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Icons and Emoji
Personalised video content
Graphs, figures, and charts
Typography
Layout
Video content
Photos and images
Written Instructions
Overall design and organisation of the site
1
8
8
9
11
14
15
17
23
29
29
32
36
40
163
contributing to direct instruction, 41 times, while the overall design and organisation of the OLE was second,
identified by students 31 times. Typography and layout were identified as contributing to direct instruction
27 and 26 times, respectively, while photos and images were identified 21 times. This is followed by video
content (18), private chat (15), mentioning people by name (14), icons and emoji (13), and graphs, figures
and charts (12). Finally, personalised video (7), live videoconferencing (2) and audio content (2) round out
the semiotic resources identified by student participants. There were two submissions in the “Other”
category: “Asking questions” (although it is unclear what context this is meant in, possibly referring to live
videoconferencing or opportunities for personalised chat) and “Using email”. The semiotic resources
students identified as contributing to direct instruction are illustrated in Figure 6.28.
Figure 6.28 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Direct Instruction (All Students) Pre-Intervention
6.8.2. Social Presence
6.8.2.1. Affective Communication
Students were asked, “For questions 14 - 16: What did the instructor use to help you to know them
and other students in this unit/subject? (Choose all that apply)”, when thinking about the resources
contributing to affective communication. The semiotic resources identified by students as contributing to
affective expression in the OLE are contained in Figure 6.29. Students identified written instructions 29
times as being the semiotic resource that contributes to the development and use of affective expression in
their OLEs. By contrast, it is unsurprising that students would identify mentioning people by name 28 times
as one of the semiotic resources most contributing to affective expression within their OLE. The overall
design and organisation of the OLE features as the third most identified semiotic resource, 25 times, while
0510 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other
Audio content
Live videoconferencing
Personalised video content
Graphs, figures, and charts
Icons & emoji
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Private chat
Video content
Photos and images
Layout
Typography
Overall design and organisation of the site
Written Instructions
2
2
2
7
12
13
14
15
18
21
26
27
31
40
164
photos and images (23) and layout (20) round out the top five resources. Video content (18) was followed
by personalised video content and typography, both of which were identified by student-participants as
contributing to affective expression 16 times. Private chat was identified 14 times, followed by icons and
emoji (11) and graphs figures and charts (7), while live videoconference and audio content were each
identified 5 times. The “Other” category was identified 6 times, with student participants noting the
inclusion of “Open special lectures” and icebreaker-like tasks as resources that contribute to affective
expression in the OLE.
Figure 6.29 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Affective Expression (All Students) Pre-
Intervention
6.8.2.2. Open Communication
Students were also asked, “For questions 17 - 19: What did the instructor use to find out about your level
of comfort communicating online with them and other students? (Choose all that apply)”, in relation to
open communication. As with affective expression, written instructions was the semiotic resource most
perceived as contributing to open expression. This seemingly contradictory result is discussed further below.
Written instructions was identified 27 times. The overall design and organisation (25) and layout (21) were
the next most identified categories of semiotic resource. Mentioning people by name (18), photos and
images (17), personalised video content (16), private chat (15) and typography (14) were followed by video
content (13), icons and emoji (7), graphs, figures and charts (6), audio content (5) and live videoconference
(4). “Other” was identified by student-participants 4 times and included grouping students differently for
different collaborative tasks (2 mentions), assessment tasks that require talking with other students online,
and beginning the subject/course with a series of collaborative orientation tasks (1 each). 7 student-
0510 15 20 25 30
I don't know
Audio content
Live videoconferencing
Graphs, figures, and charts
Other
Icons and symbols
Private chat
Typography
Personalised video content
Video content
Layout
Photos and images
Overall design and organisation of the site
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Written Instructions
1
5
5
7
7
11
14
16
16
18
20
22
25
28
29
165
participants indicated that they didn’t know. The semiotic resources students perceived as contributing to
open expression in the OLE are presented in Figure 6.30.
Figure 6.30 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Open Communication (All Students) Pre-
Intervention
6.8.2.3. Group Cohesion
Figure 6.31 details the semiotic resources student-participants identify as contributing to group
cohesion, reflecting the question, “For questions 20 - 22: What did the instructor use to build your level of
comfort and trust between you and your classmates? What did they do to help you collaborate with other
students? (Choose all that apply)”. Written instructions again feature as the most identified, at 33 responses.
This is followed by overall design and organisation (27), layout (18) and mentioning people by name (17).
Personalised video content, opportunities for private chat with the instructor, and typography, are each
identified by students 16 times. The use of photos and images are identified by students 14 times, while
video content and the use of icons and emoji are both identified as contributing to group cohesion 13 times
each. Videoconferencing as a semiotic resource was identified a total of six times as contributing to group
cohesion, and audio content was identified three times. Student-participants indicated they didn’t know
twice. There were seven “Other” responses: use of group work for activities (4), using chat and message
platforms outside of the OLE/LMS (e.g. Kakao Talk) (2), and using the breakout room functions of various
videoconference platforms (1).
0510 15 20 25 30
Live videoconferencing
Other
Audio content
Graphs, figures, and charts
Icons and symbols
I don't know
Video content
Typography
Private chat
Personalised video content
Photos and images
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Layout
Overall design and organisation of the site
Written Instructions
4
4
5
6
7
7
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
25
27
166
Figure 6.31 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Group Cohesion (All Students) Pre-Intervention
6.8.3. Cognitive Presence
6.8.3.1. Triggering Event & Exploration
Student-participants were also asked to respond to the following question in relation to semiotic
resources used to create the triggering event: “For questions 23 - 28: What did the instructor use to provide
instructions for tasks and help you understand how the concepts discussed and the assessments used in this
unit/subject were relevant? (Choose all that apply)”. These perceptions are captured in Figure 6.32. Students
perceived the overall design and organisation as contributing most to triggering and exploration, responding
as such in the CoI survey 41 times. Written instructions also featured 41 times in student responses, while
the use of photos and images, and layout, were identified 37 times each as contributing to triggering and
exploration. Video content (35) rounds out the five semiotic resources identified as contributing the most
to triggering and exploration. This is followed by typography (28), graphs, figures, and charts (27), icons
and emoji (23), and personalised video content (17). Finally, mentioning people by name (14), private chat
(7), audio content (5) and live video conference (3) were identified relatively less. The “Other” category
was selected twice by students, who noted the use of reflection tasks focused on practice teaching
contributed to triggering and exploration.
0510 15 20 25 30 35
I don't know
Audio content
Live videoconferencing
Graphs, figures, and charts
Other
Icons & Emoji
Video content
Photos and images
Typography
Private chat
Personalised video content
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Layout
Overall design and organisation of the site
Written Instructions
2
3
6
7
7
13
13
14
16
16
16
17
18
27
33
167
Figure 6.32 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Trigger Event & Exploration (All Students) Pre-
Intervention
6.8.3.2. Integration & Resolution
The final subcategories of cognitive presence that student-participants were asked to respond to
were the Integration and Resolution stages of the PIM. Students were asked, “For questions 29 - 34: What
did the instructor use to help you deal with questions and understand that the concepts in this unit/subject
were applicable to classroom practice? (Choose all that apply)”. Students identified live videoconference
opportunities as the semiotic resource contributing the least to these subcategories, at just 3 times. In
ascending order, audio content (4), mentioning people by name (8), private chat (9) and personalised video
chat (12) were the next resources identified by students. These are followed by icons and emoji (14), graphs,
figures and charts (22) and typography (24). The five semiotic resources identified as most contributing to
Integration and Resolution are photos and images (29), layout (30), video content (32), and both written
instructions and overall design and layout of the OLE (both 39). One student indicated that they didn’t
know. The semiotic resources identified by students as contributing to Integration and Resolution are
illustrated in Figure 6.33.
0510 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Other
Live videoconferencing
Audio content
Private chat
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Personalised video content
Icons & Emoji
Graphs, figures, and charts
Typography
Video content
Layout
Photos and images
Written Instructions
Overall design and organisation of the site
2
3
5
7
14
17
23
27
28
35
37
37
41
41
168
Figure 6.33 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Integration & Resolution (All Students) S2 2019
6.9. Summary
This chapter reported the results of the content analysis, semi-structured interviews, and CoI survey.
Employing these three methods culminates in the creation of a survey of practice. The survey of practice
describes which semiotic resources are present in each of the six OLEs (content analysis) and the rationale
behind the use of those resources revealed by instructors (via interviews). Viewed together, the content
analysis and interviews begin to paint a picture of how semiotic resources are exploited in the OLE. At the
same time, the administration of the modified CoI survey quantified students’ perceptions of semiotic
resource use in the OLE.
The content analysis shows that written language is the most exploited semiotic resource in the
OLE. However, within the mode of written language there is considerable use of typographic semiotic
resources at the micro and mesotypographical level (Stöckl, 2005), especially bold typefaces. Such use is
indicative of teaching presence, in particular the subcategory of direct instruction with instructors bolding
words and phrases important to subject content. This practice may reflect in students’ perception that
instructors communicated clearly, discussions in their OLEs were focused, and discourse facilitated in such
a way that social and cognitive presence were supported. Student-participants also believed that their
instructors posed questions and set tasks that piqued their interest regarding issues in the TESOL field. It
is likely that the building of interest is at least in part, the result of instructors employing semiotic resources,
such as images, to create a triggering event (cognitive presence). Such triggering events could be the result
of the use of linguistic semiotic resources, but the sheer number of other, non-linguistic resources in the
0510 15 20 25 30 35 40
I don't know
Live videoconferencing
Audio content
Mentioned people (or you) by name
Private chat
Personalised video content
Icons & emoji
Graphs, figures, and charts
Typography
Photos and images
Layout
Video content
Written Instructions
Overall design and organisation of the site
1
3
4
8
9
12
14
22
24
29
30
32
39
39
169
OLE makes this unlikely. Nevertheless, student responses to the CoI survey indicated that they value
written language for establishing open communication in the OLE. Presumably, students prefer to have
clear instructions as to what they are going to discuss in a forum, post or comment.
Furthermore, student-participants were confident that they could apply the knowledge created in
the course to their teaching contexts. This points to the potential for students to move beyond exploration
and integration in the PIM (cognitive presence). It is difficult to observe or measure resolution, the final
stage of the PIM – consistent with the challenges faced by instructors outlined by Garrison (2017). On the
other hand, it is possible that, unlike other disciplines like mathematics, resolution for pre- and in-service
teachers may be observable in practicum or mock teaching tasks. Practical experience/assessment is not
unique to teacher education in TESOL but disciplines that require students to demonstrate mastery of
content may have a better opportunity to observe students in the final, resolution stage of the PIM.
Student-participants’ perceptions regarding social presence in their OLEs were more diverse than
responses to survey items relating to teaching and cognitive presence. In particular, student-participants
were not always comfortable interacting online and found it difficult disagreeing with their peers. Social
presence seemed to be the most difficult of the CoI presences to establish in the OLE with all six classes
recording the lowest mean scores for affective communication, open communication and group cohesion
(see Table 6.20a). Students perceive the overall design of the OLE as the semiotic resource as important to
establishing teaching and cognitive presence in addition to written language being critical for social
presence. These results are important for contributing to RQ1, allowing us to start to identify the semiotic
resources exploited by instructors. In addition, these results inform the design, development, as well as the
delivery of the professional development. The potential impact for professional development is discussed
in the next chapter.
170
Chapter 7 – Discussion: Initial Survey of Practice
In this chapter, I discuss the results of the pre-intervention stage of the study termed an Initial
Survey of Practice reported in Chapter 5. The first survey of practice aims to answer RQ1 and is focused
on establishing what semiotic resources are exploited by online instructors, how they are used, and their
potential to support online teaching and learning (OTL). The answers to RQ1 inform the design and
development of the professional development intervention. This chapter does not directly address RQ2,
instead reserving that discussion for the post-intervention stage of the study except where necessary to
explain context or illustrate a relationship.
7.1. Defining Exploitation
In the pre-intervention stage, a definition of the term “exploit”, used in RQ1, started to emerge
based on the data gathered in the content analyses, semi-structured interviews and responses to the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey. To exploit a semiotic resource in OTL is to implement it in an online
learning environment (OLE) in response to a perceived subject matter, pedagogical or socio-cultural
challenge. The instructor’s use of a resource reflects an evaluation of its efficacy in addressing the challenge.
7.2. Refining Categorisation in the Content Analysis
Throughout the pre-intervention stage of the study, the categories of semiotic resources described
in the content analysis were refined based on the interviews with instructors, student responses to the CoI
survey, and discussion among coders. This process of refinement led to semiotic resources being coded as
discrete items and placed into one of seven categories which allowed for the development and visualisation
of the data in the starburst charts in Chapter 6 (see §6.3.). Furthermore, categorisation allowed for more
specificity in coding, especially when it came to assigning functions to the semiotic resources that were
observed. Table 7.1 outlines the narrowing in scope of semiotic resources and what constitutes a semiotic
resource. Discussed in more detail below, the content analysis and the semi-structured interviews revealed
several differences in the use and availability of semiotic software between the different institutions and
identified a mix of preferences among instructor-participants. However, some elements, such as semiotic
software, remained uncategorised at the end of the pre-intervention stage of the study. Notwithstanding the
lack of a category, the use of VoiceThread (VoiceThread LLC, 2022) in Class F is an example of the use
of semiotic software employed in the OLE. Semiotic software like VoiceThread is a popular tool among
teachers and is mentioned in the literature relating to the CoI. It is effective in promoting participation in
support of establishing CoI presences (DeNoyelles, Zydney & Chen, 2014). VoiceThread addresses
multiple presences at the same time: audio, images and text stimulate discussion and feedback (De Noyelles,
Zydney, & Chen, 2014), for example.
Similarly, UI/design is uncategorised since it is difficult to quantify and proved difficult to assign
a frequency. This is because each page within an OLE constitutes an instance of UI/design or layout. Design
may be consistent between pages in an LMS, however, if students use a semiotic software tool on the open
171
internet for example, it is likely to ascribe to a different design paradigm Finally, colour as a semiotic
resource was reasonably easy for coders to identify and code, but because of the restrictions imposed on its
use in the respective LMSs, it remained problematic at the end of the pre-intervention stage as well. Colour
is an important semiotic resource in terms of OTL and the frequency of use of colour in an OLE is
quantifiable, but it is not always clear whether that use is the result of instructor choice. Where instructors
do have some agency over the use of colour is in hyperlinking, and so colour is considered when it relates
to typography.
Table 7.1 Categorising Semiotic Resources in the Content Analysis
Broader scope
Narrower scope
Categorised
Semi-structured Interviews
CoI Survey
Content Analysis
Typography
Written language
Headings
Colour
Typography
Written instructions
Typography
Photo
Chart/diagram/table
Photos & Image
Graphs/figures/charts
Images
Discussion
Forums
Posts
Comments
Chat
Mentioned by name
Discussion
Icons
Emoji and Icons
Icons & emoji
Hyperlinks
Hyperlinks
Hyperlinks
Video
Animation
Videoconferencing
Video
Personalised video
Videoconferencing
Video
Audio
Audio
Audio
Uncategorised
Semi-structured Interviews
CoI Survey
Content Analysis
e.g., H5P, VoiceThread
Semiotic software
Layout
Overall organisation
UI/Design
By refining the categories of semiotic resources fewer complex discussions among coders, and
decisions about what category a resource belongs to becomes easier. Refinement also allowed for the
creation of visual representations of resource used in OLEs –apropos, given the aims of the present study,
and potentially useful for illustrating resource use in the professional development intervention. Considered
as a whole, the results of the content analysis are consistent with how Bezemer and Kress (2008)
conceptualised a text-as-complex-sign (p.171), in this case, the OLE. The use of multiple types of semiotic
resources and ensembles of semiotic resources found in the OLEs examined here, and reported in the
content analysis, is consistent with Bezemer and Kress (2008) who state:
These [different semiotic resources] can be used to do different kinds of semiotic work or
to do broadly similar semiotic work with different resources in different ways.
(p. 171)
172
However, while we can consider the use of different resources doing “broadly similar semiotic work”, more
is happening in the OLE than just multiple representations of the same ideas or content27. Bezemer and
Kress (2008) continue:
That is, modes have different affordances—potentials and constraints for making meaning.
This enables sign makers to do different work in relation to their interests and their
rhetorical intentions for designs of meaning, which, in modal ensembles, best meet the
rhetor’s interest and sense of the needs of the audience.
(p. 172)
Put a slightly different way, instructors must use the right “tool” for the job if they are going to be successful
in communicating and modelling key TESOL concepts to students and establishing a CoI. To accomplish
this, instructors need to consider the value of different semiotic resources available to them. Being aware
of the functions of different semiotic resources within the OLE is also important:
That is, by drawing on the specific affordances of different modes in the making of complex
signs as modal ensembles, sign makers can meet the complex, often contradictory demands
of their own interest, the needs of the matter to be communicated, and the characteristics
of the audience.
Bezemer & Kress (2008, p.171-172)
7.3. Semi-structured Interviews with Instructor-participants
The semi-structured interviews revealed that Instructor-participants could identify the different
semiotic resources they employed in their OLE. Instructors were also able to describe how those resources
function, which supports the interpretation of these semiotic resources as indicators of presence. Instructor-
participants also voiced concerns over the lack of regular opportunities for professional development in
using the LMS. The professional development intervention in this study presented in the following chapter,
does not have the capacity to deliver training specifically on different LMS use, but UI/design and the
organisation of the OLE are clearly important in terms of design and organisation (teaching presence) and
triggering and exploration stages of the practical inquiry model (PIM) (cognitive presence).
During the semi-structured interviews, instructors also suggested that the semiotic resources they
employed were dependent on the LMS used.; In addition, two of the instructors reported that they engaged
an educational developer or technologist to help build some or all of the content into the LMS. Educational
developers and technologists are often well versed in working around restrictions in the LMS and will
sometimes make decisions about the use of semiotic resources in the OLE on behalf of the instructor.
Moodle, the LMS used by instructors in Classes D, E and F, allows considerably more customisation than
Google Classroom, used by instructors in Classes A, B and C, which is more “locked down” as reported by
Michelle (Classes A and B). In some cases, this means instructors are forced to use certain resources
because they are prevented from using others.
27 However, the communication of ideas and concepts using multiple representations is a core principle that underpins Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) approaches to the design, development and delivery of educational content, including content delivered
via an LMS. UDL literally encourages the use of multiple modes to optimise teaching and learning, especially for students with
various access needs, cf. https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl.
173
7.3.1. Semiotic Software
Further analysis of the semi-structured interviews pointed to noticeable differences in the semiotic
software tools that are available to instructors in Moodle versus those in Google Classroom. The examples
of semiotic software discussed by instructors using Moodle were a mix of applications integrated into
Moodle e.g., H5P (Joubel, 2022) and outside of the LMS e.g., VoiceThread (VoiceThread LLC, 2022).
Google Classroom users viewed all of Google’s applications as integrated into the LMS. Such software is
probably integrated or embedded within an LMS or accessed via hyperlink and is more specialised than
ubiquitous office or social media applications because of its instructional underpinnings. Semiotic software
also still enables instructors to choose from a range of semiotic resources to represent knowledge. The
availability of semiotic software accounts for the relatively high level of discussion in interviews with Chloe
and Sam (Classes E and F) compared to other instructor-participants, both of whom built their OLEs in
Moodle. Comments from these two instructors centre on their use of H5P (Joubel, 2022) for authoring
interactive activities embedded in the LMS. H5P, as an example of semiotic software, affords instructors
the ability to design tasks that provide opportunities for formative assessment that scaffold student
understanding, and are often employed to check student understanding of key concepts thy have
encountered before moving on to a new section or topic in the OLE. The affordances of H5P as semiotic
software make it a good example of the dynamic process of sign-making (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, p. 129).
By contrast, Michelle and Tayla’s use of Google Classroom means that the integration or embedding of
semiotic software into the OLE is difficult or indeed impossible unless that software is a Google property.
Implementing H5P requires significant technical knowledge, access, expenditure of financial
resources, and human capital to deploy in an LMS, and this is usually done at the institutional level. Among
the instructor-participants in this study, those from the larger Northern and Southern Universities had access
to H5P, unlike the instructor-participants from the comparatively smaller Central University. VoiceThread
is another example of semiotic software noted by Chloe (Class F). VoiceThread allows multiple modes to
be co-deployed both for creating and responding to content and can be used for formative (or even
summative) assessment in English Language Teaching contexts. For example, Herlihy and Pottage (2013)
noted that, for formative assessment, VoiceThread allows tutors both more time to respond and the ability
to relisten to students' spoken production. In terms of summative assessment, Stannard and Basiel (2013)
emphasise the collaborative aspect of VoiceThread, and the potential for peer feedback and self-evaluation,
making it particularly worthy of inclusion in a course.
Instructors discussed examples of semiotic software they used in the OLEs built in Google
Classroom at Central University. By virtue of being a Google property, Google Classroom provides users
with access to Google Docs, Presentations, Sheets, Gmail and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube, the
world’s largest repository of video-based learning content. The value to teacher education in TESOL of
YouTube was noted by all the instructor-participants in the semi-structured interviews, both as a source of
relevant and authentic examples of language teaching for consideration by students, and as a source of texts
for receptive skills development in English teaching. Tayla (Class C) summarised comments from
174
numerous instructors by suggesting that YouTube videos were efficient in providing a “hook” to capture
students’ attention in a lesson (i.e., a triggering event – cognitive presence). Although each of the Google
properties can be considered a stand-alone entity, their integration with Google Classroom is such that they
are perceived as part of the LMS.
Interviews also yielded evidence of instructors’ attempts to integrate collaborative tasks into their
OLEs. Different levels of collaboration were reported in terms of what each instructor was able to achieve
(either teacher to students or among students) using the resources available to them within their respective
OLEs. While synchronous collaboration in Moodle is absent for the most part, almost every facet of Google
Classroom allows students (and instructors) to collaborate in real-time, such that both Michelle and Tayla
spoke at length during interviews on the positive outcomes for students being able to collaborate via text,
for example, with their instructors and receive formative feedback in real-time or near-real-time as they
typed their assignments. These approaches are backed up in the literature as good practice, specifically with
reference to instructors taking advantage of Google Docs regardless of whether they utilise Google
Classroom as an LMS (e.g., Kakoulli-Constantinou, 2018; Smith & Enochs, 2018; Chong, 2019), and to
the ability to incorporate peer feedback and the teaching of peer editing strategies into instruction (e.g.,
Jeong, 2016; Bhowmik et al., 2019). The peer editing practices Tayla described using in their writing class
(having students share Google Docs access with each other to work on the same writing task concurrently)
seems to confirm the ease of implementation of peer editing alluded to by Damayanti, et al. (2021).
7.3.2. Images & Video
In interviews, various still and moving image types, such as charts, diagrams, photographs, video,
and animation, were identified by all of the instructors as resources they already employed to some extent
in their OLEs. All of the instructors also reported that their use of images scaffolded students in visualising
and conceptualising difficult content. Additionally, two of the instructors noted that, occasionally, a picture
really is worth 1000 words and using an image is often an efficient way to make a point clearer for students.
This is consistent with Li (2020) which noted that the use of imagery is a means for building efficiencies
in learning, especially in computer-mediated contexts. Additionally, we also know that in language
learning, visual orthographic and image information improves learners’ ability to learn difficult phonemes
in a second language (Altarriba et al., 2011, p. 43). The same can be said of video. All of the instructors
concurred that video is a means for providing examples of authentic language use from outside the
classroom to language learners (Cakici, 2016, p. 75). Instructors in this study were also aware of the value
of video for scaffolding students’ understanding of TESOL methods for the same reason. Video of a teacher
offering error correction for example can be played in class and analysed showing different approaches.
However, most instructors were equally cautious about the use of video, echoing Kulmagambetova and
Shalabayeva’s (2021) call for careful consideration of the use of images and videos in English teaching.
This may go some way to explaining why fewer videos than expected were observed in OLEs. While
advocates for the use of images and video also call for the creation of conditions where images and video
promote interactive communication (Sherwani, 2021) at least one of the instructors in the present study
175
noted that finding appropriate videos depicting exactly what they wanted students to see was often a
difficult process. When asked if they could make their own videos all of the instructors cited lack of time,
support, payment, and video creation skill as preventing them from doing so.
7.3.3. Layout and UI Design: Instructors
Each instructor offered a slightly different understanding of what they meant by “layout”, but in
sum, all five instructors referred to the “look and feel” of their OLE as it was rendered on the user’s screen
– the site of display (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, p. 164). Instructors are referring to the user interface (UI)
design of the OLE. Studies that examine UI are often influenced by concepts such as usability (Nielsen,
1994), interaction design and human-computer interaction (Tognazzini, 2014), and information technology
appropriation (e.g., Plumb, 2017). Instructors are keenly aware of the importance of the design and UI of
their OLE but discuss it differently depending on which LMS they use. Consulting the professional
literature, interface design is usually governed by a set of principles, aimed at providing the user with the
most “friction-free” experience (Guerra, 2021). In an OLE, the end-users of the UI include both instructors
and students.
The differences in how instructors conceive layout reflect the variance present in the literature on
the fundamental principles of UI design. Some descriptions in the literature on UI/design list as many as
19 principles, for example, Tognazzini (2014). By contrast, Babich (2019) lists just four as part of the
support documents28 for Adobe XD (Adobe Corporation, 2021): place users in control of the interface;
make it comfortable to interact with a product; reduce cognitive load; and make user interfaces consistent.
These four principles also form the foundation on which I began the design of the professional development
intervention discussed in the next chapter.
Although aware of UI design, instructors have limited control over it due to restrictions imposed
by their respective LMSs, especially Google Classroom, and institutions. Google gives instructor and
student users mostly equal control over the UI. Instructors necessarily have more control to post and add
content, but both have to work with the same Google-created UI design called “Material Design” (Google,
2021) (see, for example, Pinandito et al. 2017). Material Design is probably familiar to many Google
Classroom users because of its use across all of the company’s online properties. Introduced in 2014,
Google cites the influence of good web design and accessibility requirements on the development of
Material Design. Material Design forgoes the use of shading and gradients for the most part in favour of
large amounts of white space on the screen and the use of “cards” that have the effect of grouping related
28 See Babich (2019). While Babich and Adobe make a good sales pitch for Adobe XD in these support documents, the information
contained therein is sound, based on Schneiderman et al. (2016) and also Nielsen (1994) mentioned above. Moreover, the language
it is written in is approachable and would be suitable for distribution in a professional development context. The only point of
possible contention is Babich’s assertion that real-world metaphors are an important component of making interaction with a
product comfortable. As a study specifically interested in semiotic resources, the potential for problems arising for the present
study from the use of an icon versus an index in the OLE is always a concern (or at least a point of interest). Consider, for example,
the ‘save’ button in numerous applications is an image of a 3.5” floppy disk – a good example of a Peircean (1977) icon. Yet the
floppy is all but dead, we have retained the image of the floppy disk, but it has become a Peircean index, signifying what is
happening rather than directly representing it.
176
information on the page, a characteristic of how information is organised on-screen across Google’s
applications and web properties and has the added benefit of reducing cognitive load (e.g., Culatta, n.d.;
Guyan, 2013; Pappas, 2014). The consistent application of Material Design gives Google’s products
cohesion and makes it reasonable to consider applications like Classroom, Documents, and Google Drive
as part of the same LMS. The benefits provide for a consistent interface experience across Google
properties including Google Classroom. The Google Classroom UI even eschews real-word metaphors,
save for a paper aeroplane icon (more accurately, an index) to submit a post and an icon that depicts what
has variously been described as a document or a clipboard to indicate an assignment.
Although Moodle is more customisable compared to Google Classroom, this can be overwhelming
for instructors (Beatty & Ulasewicz 2006; Subramanian, 2014; Zeiber, 2019) and even engender poor UI
design practices such as the overuse of semiotic resources such as icons (e.g., Priss, 2020). This has the
effect of creating a frustrating user experience (UX) making the OLE an uncomfortable product to interact
with. Instructor-participant Ben (Class D) calls out Moodle’s “bells and whistles”, the potential for multiple
resources and other tools to be used, as unnecessary, and occasionally even abused. Ben would prefer an
OLE that relies on written language that focuses on student-student collaboration through activities such as
blogs and wikis, and where the UI design incorporates the same kind of “white space”29 found in Google’s
LMS. This would, in Ben’s estimation, place more emphasis on the content and less emphasis on the
semiotic flotsam that sometimes surrounds it. This, Ben believes, would lessen the cognitive load imposed
on students as they access content in the OLE, and on instructors while building it. Whether consciously
done so or not, the content analysis of Ben’s OLE found written language and typography to be the most
prominent of resources employed. Conversely, Ben created numerous examples of videos tailored
specifically for the students in Class D despite all instructors intimating that video was arguably the most
difficult of the semiotic resources to create (see §7.3.2. above).
7.3.4. Fonts, Colours & Headings
Interestingly, the interviews with instructors barely touched on typography which, as defined in
§5.5.5.1., includes font size, style, and colour, except for discussion of the usefulness of headings to
signpost content for students as they move through the OLE. Instructors using both Google Classroom and
Moodle LMSs are restricted in their use of colour. As noted previously, instructors using Moodle were
constrained to colours consistent with their institutions’ brand or “school colours”. The intention here was
consistency, if not uniformity, across the different OLEs that students experience at the institution. These
colours were set at the institutional level, and instructors were unable to change them for the most part
without further technical knowledge. In addition, instructors at both Southern and Northern Universities
were encouraged to make the content in their OLEs accessible to students with learning needs, by following
29 In UI design, white space, sometimes referred to as “negative space”, is the empty space between and around typographical
resources such as indents, ordered and unordered lists, paragraphs, images, video players, icons and other elements such as buttons
and text input fields. Despite the name, white space needn’t be white (CanvasFlip, 2017), and can be any colour or even a
background image.
177
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 30 (W3C, 2018). Requirements making content
accessible to students with access needs further limited the use of colour in the OLE. This may have resulted
in instructors favouring written language because the affordances of typographical semiotic resources for
communicating meaning were easier to implement compared to when using images and video, for example.
Examining instructor responses in the semi-structured interviews and the content analyses showed
that instructors were keenly aware of the restrictions imposed on them when it came to colour, but they
were less aware, or not aware, of issues such as accessibility which are often related to the use of colour.
One reason why colour is controlled at the institutional level, and the use of colour is governed by the code
that underpins the LMS, is to ensure accessibility. For example, "alert boxes" are displayed using different
colours to communicate different levels of alert for sighted viewers, while the HTML and CSS code in
Moodle ensures that alert boxes are explicitly labelled as ‘alert boxes’ for learners with impaired eyesight
using screen reader software. The code relating to the use of colour can be seen in Figure 7.1 represented
in the first line for each alert box e.g., <div class="alert alert-danger" role="alert">. The output
of the code, displayed to users, is illustrated in Figure 7.1a.
Figure 7.1 Bootstrap (2022) Code for Alert Boxes
Line #
HTML/CSS Code
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
<div class="alert alert-primary" role="alert">
This is a primary alert—check it out!
</div>
<div class="alert alert-secondary" role="alert">
This is a secondary alert—check it out!
</div>
<div class="alert alert-success" role="alert">
This is a success alert—check it out!
</div>
<div class="alert alert-danger" role="alert">
This is a danger alert—check it out!
</div>
<div class="alert alert-warning" role="alert">
This is a warning alert—check it out!
</div>
<div class="alert alert-info" role="alert">
This is a info alert—check it out!
</div>
30 WCAG 2.1 is used to “make content more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including accommodations for
blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of
these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations” (WC3, 2018. cf.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/). While the advantages of OTL are well known, the potential barriers for students
with learning needs have only started to be examined over the last 10 years. The Center on Online Learning and Students with
Disabilities (COLSD), for example, finds that a vast majority of online learning systems [sic] for learners in K-12 present content
that is not appropriately designed for, or accessible to, many students with disabilities (COLSD, 2012; Hashey & Stahl, 2014). The
consequence for instructors, especially those lacking institutional support in the form of clear policy and technical and educational
design support, is that they must consider accessibility requirements in addition to the other roles that Bezemer and Kress (2016,
p.171) suggest they already undertake.
178
Figure 7.1a Alert Boxes
Alerts provide contextual feedback messages for typical user actions with […] flexible alert messages (Bootstrap,
2021). Note, the HTML links colour to meanings – red indicates a “danger” alert, for example. These messages are
read aloud to individuals using a screen reader, creating the occasional non sequitur when seemingly benign
information is used in a “danger” alert box.
Instructors using Google Classroom have little control over the colour used in the OLE. Instead,
the LMS creates a colour theme based on the header image selected by the instructor. Titles, links and icons
follow this theme, as shown in Figures 7.2a and 7.2b (overpage). Class B’s Google Classroom, however,
used a header with the main colour (blue) matching Central University’s brand, for example.
179
Figure 7.2a Green Theme in Google Classroom
Figure 7.2b Orange Theme in Google Classroom
Green (Fig. 7.2a) and orange (Fig 7.2b) themed OLEs in Google Classroom. Themes are automatically applied by
the LMS based on the header image.
180
7.4. Functions of Semiotic Resources
Semi-structured interviews confirm that instructors consider the function of some semiotic
resources when they choose to employ it in their online learning environment for example video. However,
most instructors did not seem to be able to account for their use of less obvious semiotic resources
(compared to a video) like typography. If we start to account for the use of resources by the functions they
fulfil, then we can start to map them to the CoI framework and describe how they contribute to each of the
presences.
The connection between resource, function and presence is influenced by numerous factors:
• The LMS being used
• Instructor familiarity with the LMS and UI/design principles
• Subject content (e.g., practical versus theory-based)
• Level of institutional support provided to instructors in creating the OLE
• Needs of specific student cohorts.
Notwithstanding these influencing factors and based on comparing the content analyses with discussion in
the semi-structured interviews, an initial description of how semiotic resources are used in the OLEs, and
how they contribute to presences emerges:
• Semiotic resources fulfilling a primarily instructional function are an indicator of teaching
presence. Instructional resources contribute to the direct instruction subcategory by presenting
subject-specific information. Instructors indicated that they used an image to complement or
otherwise illustrate a written text or a video and provide an example of a concept discussed in a
post, for example.
• Semiotic resources fulfilling a primarily discoursal/affective function are an indicator of
social presence. The use of VoiceThread by Chloe (Class F) is a good example of semiotic
software employed to elicit or encourage open communication and establish group cohesion at the
beginning of a teaching session.
• A semiotic resource can fulfil multiple roles, often at the same time. Semiotic resources that
fulfil instructional and discoursal affective functions simultaneously are an indicator of
cognitive presence. Video reflection of practice teaching is a good example of a semiotic resource
fulfilling both instructional and discoursal/affective functions. Relative to the other presences,
cognitive presence involves a more complex process of knowledge construction characterised by
the practical inquiry model. Viewing one’s teaching on video is definitely triggering, in addition to
being a triggering event consistent with the PIM.
Repeated viewing and analysis as students work through the exploration stage of the PIM sees
video shift to fulfilling an instructional function. If students produce something because of their
reflection, some reflection notes, an essay on a critical incident, or a lesson plan as part of the
integration stage of the PIM, the video continues to be instructional.
181
Finally, while not utilised during the resolution stage per se, a student may return to the video at a
later point to compare their practice (instructional) or simply to look back and confirm their
improvement (discoursal/affective). Where a teacher identifies that they continue to make the same
mistakes, perhaps the video becomes a triggering event once again (discoursal/affective).
• Semiotic resources fulfilling an aesthetic function and resources fulfilling a navigational
function could be interpreted as an indicator of teaching presence. If the use of a semiotic
resource is solely because it looks good (and remains within the bounds of UI/design good practice),
its aesthetic function works as an indicator of teaching presence. If it helps students move between
parts of the OLE and outside, the navigational function it fulfils is an indicator of teaching presence.
Instructors noted that these were the kinds of things they usually attended to before the beginning
of the teaching session. In the interviews, participants discussed what I’ve termed the Legacy image
– a semiotic resource that fulfils an aesthetic function but is copied from a previous instance of the
OLE.
7.5. Community of Inquiry Survey
There is the potential for differences in the responses to the CoI survey because of the different
cohorts of learners. In the pre-intervention stage, there is a mixture of delivery modes i.e., students
completing the subjects in a blended mode while still attending campus and students who are learning fully
online. The location of students (Korea and Australia) also has an impact on students’ perceptions. However,
these differences were not the main focus of the study. Instead, students’ perception of a resource’s impact
on the CoI presences and reflecting on the function of semiotic resources in the OLE are the main focus.
7.5.1. Written language
The main modification to the CoI survey in this study is the addition of a question at the end of
each section asking which semiotic resources students perceive as contributing to each CoI presence. These
findings are summarised in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Semiotic Resources Identified by Students as Contributing to Presences
Presence
Subcategory
Semiotic Resource
Freq.
Teaching Presence
Design & Organisation
Overall design
45
Discourse facilitation
Overall design
40
Direct instruction
Written instructions
40
Social Presence
Affective expression
Written instructions
29
Open communication
Written instructions
27
Group cohesion
Written instructions
33
Cognitive Presence
Triggering event, Exploration
Overall design
41
Photos and images
37
Integration, Resolution
Overall design
39
Written instructions
39
Video
32
182
From the students’ point of view, written instructions (written language) contributed to all three
presences. Specifically, they contributed most to establishing each of the social presence subcategories of
affective communication (29), open communication (27) and group cohesion (33). Likewise, students’
responses indicated that written instructions contributed to the Integration and Resolution stages (39) of the
PIM (cognitive presence) and direct instruction (teaching presence). These results reflect the prominence
of written language as a means of communicating in the OLE, which has not changed since the early 21st
century (e.g., Garrison et al., 2001a; Garrison et al., 2001b; Anderson et al., 2001), despite the ability to
create multimedia resources becoming a lot easier for instructors and educational designers.
A discrepancy was found between the discussion in interviews with instructors, the content analysis,
and the CoI Survey regarding the use of written instructions. In the interviews, only one instructor explicitly
spoke about written language (Ben, Class D). This was interpreted as instructors used written language
mostly to communicate content and provide instructions (direct instruction – teaching presence) On the
other hand, Table 6.2 shows students perceived written language as impacting the establishment of social
presence (and contributing to direct instruction and integration and resolution).This discrepancy raises
questions about whether the role of written language is sufficiently appreciated in OTL in general and what
focus, if any, it deserves in the professional development intervention. Do instructors and educational
designers just assume that written language is the main resource for communication in their OLE while
other semiotic resources are used to extend the affordances of writing (e.g., through the use of bold
typefaces) or augment written language (e.g., by using images to illustrate written information)?
Additionally, are these students predisposed to prioritising written language, and specifically instructions,
because they are studying language teaching?
Written instructions may seem antithetical to free-flowing discourse and social presence for pre-
and in-service teachers. However, the practice of instruction giving has “a major impact on how well
students can carry out activities and, as a result, how well they learn” (Sowell, 2017, p. 10-11). Yet, the
delivery of good instructions poses challenges to experienced and inexperienced English teachers as well
as native and non-native English-speaking teachers. Such is the importance of instructions in teacher
education in TESOL that most courses or programs devote considerable time to them31. Nevertheless, it
appears that students here appreciate explicit instructions on how to proceed with tasks in the OLE
(Heirdsfield et al., 2011), regardless of whether tasks are oriented towards the content or provide
opportunities for interaction with their peers. In addition, the vast majority of student-student interactions
in each of the Classes A – F took place using written language in discussion forums and posts, replies, and
comments. While the ability to collaborate in real-time exists via videoconferencing and there are
alternative asynchronous interactions in Class F, which utilises VoiceThread, written language remains the
core resource for communication in all of these OLEs.
31 Central University for example has, as part of the Graduate Certificate in Young Learner TESOL an entire subject dedicated to
classroom discourse that students must pass in order to graduate from the program. In that subject, techniques for developing,
delivering, and checking student understanding of instructions are practiced every week during the 20-week teaching session.
183
7.5.2. Student Perceptions of Overall (UI) Design of the OLE
In the modified CoI survey, students were asked to indicate their perception of various semiotic
resources and what they perceived as the impact of resources on their learning. They identified the design
of the OLE as contributing to both teaching and cognitive presence. Students’ perceptions of design as
contributing to cognitive presence in this study accord with previous research on OTL indicating that UI
design is important for increasing access to course information and keeping students organised and on task
(Ballard et al., 2004). Cognitive theories of learning suggest that people will attempt to make sense of and
understand the information they are presented with (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; Bandura, 1977). Therefore, how
information is presented is just as important as how responses to that information are elicited (Ouimette,
2008).
Instructors noted in interviews the need to plan the different elements of their OLE such as how
they plan a lesson and pre-empt issues with classroom management. The idea that considerable planning
should go into how information is presented is well established in TESOL. Lesson planning, careful
consideration of the use of materials and classroom space, forethought regarding target language,
anticipating student responses, and modelling discourse, are all qualities of competent TESOL planning
and instruction (Liyanage & Bartlett, 2010; Morton & Gray, 2010; Pang, 2016; Yuan, 2018). These are
qualities that can be taught and modelled in a classroom, just as they are reflected and modelled in the
design of an OLE. The planning that goes into UI design and the structure of the OLE is analogous to
planning in face-to-face contexts and forms a key indicator of teaching presence (Kupczynski et al., 2010).
However, in some cases, UI design could hinder the very process of learning how to use an LMS. Instructor-
participant Ben, for example, complained about Moodle’s too many “bells and whistles”. Researchers have
identified poor UI design as a major limitation of numerous LMSs32 (Bradford et al., 2007; Heirdsfield et
al., 2011)
Students in this study perceived the UI and design of the OLE as facilitating discourse (teaching
presence). One reason for this may be that many students were already familiar with the UI in their OLE,
either because of familiarity with Google’s Material Design UI (Central University) or because they had
used Moodle across their undergraduate degrees (Northern University and Southern University). Where
students did not have this experience, they could draw on various support resources. Central University
provided orientation sessions before the start of the teaching session, while both Northern and Southern
Universities used a mix of web-based resources and one-on-one training to assist students in using their
LMS and promote digital literacies more broadly. Orientation sessions and support for students in using the
LMS also constitute teaching presence, specifically design and organisation. Support of this kind has
previously been characterised as effective utilisation of the medium (e.g., Rourke et al., 2001; Shea et al.,
2010; and Swan & Shih, 2005).
32 Heirdsfield et al. (2011) describe the results of a survey measuring student and instructor satisfaction with Blackboard
(Blackboard Learn™, 2021), another widely used LMS.
184
7.5.3. Video
At the outset of the present study, I assumed that video and images used in the OLE would be
linked to the triggering event or the exploration phases of the PIM (cognitive presence). However, students
identified video as one of the semiotic resources that contributed to the integration and resolution phases
instead. This is surprising for two reasons. Firstly, Garrison (2007) pointed to the difficulty that students
and instructors may have in implementing the integration and resolution phases of the PIM. Secondly, the
use of video in the different OLEs examined here was relatively low.
In teacher education in a TESOL context, the application of knowledge that forms the resolution
phase of the PIM often happens outside of the OLE, in a practicum or practice lesson (and usually in face-
to-face settings). The integration phase of the PIM is where students are actively building understanding
based on the ideas and concepts considered in the preceding exploration phase (Garrison et al., 2001).
Students are constantly evaluating and comparing their ideas against course content, their own experiences
and the experiences of their peers (Baviskar et al., 2009). As discourse is facilitated (teaching presence) by
the instructor, students continue to engage in dialogue in the OLE. I posit that it is during these comparisons
of ideas and experiences that students are likely turning to video examples in the OLE (e.g., Farrell, 2016;
Loranc‐Paszylk et al., 2021). Instructors alluded to the ability of video to bring the classroom to the students
during semi-structured interviews. Video proves particularly useful when a student doesn’t have their own
teaching experience to draw upon, i.e., when they are a pre-service teacher. On the use of video in pre-
service teacher education generally, Blomberg et al. (2011) describe video as helping pre-service teachers
to develop a so-called professional vision, or the ability to observe what is happening in a classroom and
make sense of it from a professional perspective (p. 1131). In developing a set of research-based heuristics33
for using video in pre-service education, Blomberg et al. (2013) state:
Providing a specific focus, a lens through which pre-service teachers can watch videos,
was found to alleviate some of the potential overload that novices face when watching
video (Schworm & Renkl, 2007) [and] specific facilitator moves and questions that
significantly and effectively guide teacher viewing including asking about particular
student ideas and/or comparing across ideas raised in class.
(p. 97)
If students are drawing on video for reflection (both pre- and in-service teachers) and in the
integration phase of the PIM, this needs to be accompanied by discourse facilitation techniques and direct
instruction (teaching presence); and implementing the five heuristics suggested by Blomberg et al. requires
considerable design and organisation. Similarly, Gungor (2016) examined a young learner (YL) TESOL
teacher education context (similar to Classes A and B in this study), using an action research approach. In
addition to using videos from diverse contexts (from English classrooms around the world), Gungor found
33 Blomberg et al. (2013) list five heuristics: 1) identify the learning goals served by the use of video; 2) choose an
appropriate instructional approach; 3) choose or otherwise curate video material; 4) address any limitations to the use
of video; and 5) align assessment to instruction and learning goals. These are essentially sequential steps but have the
potential to be cyclical as needed (p. 95).
185
that video is an effective reflective tool for pre-service teachers (p. 149). Although a systematic
understanding of diverse use across numerous teaching disciplines is yet to emerge, video has been
described as an effective reflective tool for students in teacher education in TESOL courses (e.g., Farrell
2015, 2016, 2017; Hanson-Smith, 2006), professional development for in-service teachers (May & Watson,
2018, pp. 64 – 65) and teacher educators (Cirocki and Widodo, 2019). Where students are engaging with
video in the integration phase of the PIM, this requires instructors to provide students with support around
the meta-cognitive requirements of reflecting on video of classroom practice compared to one’s own
practice, perhaps even modelling the process, and to combine the use of video for reflection with ways to
discuss it publicly (Celentin, 2007) in the OLE. As a result of students’ perceptions of video being more
closely associated with the latter part of the PIM, strategies surrounding video are highlighted in the
professional development intervention.
7.6. Conclusion
The results of the pre-intervention survey of practice provide a current assessment of which
semiotic resources are used in OLEs, how they are used and the reasons for their use according to instructors.
In other words, the survey of practice describes how semiotic resources are exploited by instructors and
perceived by students. In addition, these results inform the professional development intervention delivered
in the second stage of this study in several ways. Firstly, the results from the content analysis, interviews
and CoI survey culminate to provide a working definition of the term “exploitation” or how instructors use
semiotic resources in the OLE. The exploitation or use of semiotic resources speaks to both the “what” and
“how” of content teaching in the OLE. In TESOL, how one teaches is often indistinguishable from what
one teaches (Grossman, 2005; Loughran & Russell, 1997). In practice, this manifests as modelling by the
instructor. Modelling is not a demonstration for students to recall or mimic. Rather, it forms the basis of an
approach to teacher education in TESOL that pre- and in-service teachers need to critically engage with,
and reflect upon, the process of being taught (Ritter et al., 2019).
Modelling is an important factor in shaping teacher behaviour, sometimes more so than the actual
content itself (Lunenberg et al., 2007, p. 588). With this in mind, the intervention aims to present ways to
exploit semiotic resources to the benefit of increasing CoI presences but also implicitly and explicitly
models them to participants, calling attention to specific examples of semiotic resource use. Participants
are asked to reflect on both content and the use of semiotic resources vis interactive tasks and through
discussion with other participants in the intervention. Design and layout are identified by both instructors
and students as significant to the establishment of teaching presence and to a lesser extent cognitive
presence. Therefore, the design and the layout of the OLE are key considerations for the professional
development intervention.
Finally, the pre-intervention stage of this study is significant because of the survey of practice. A
similar approach, utilising three methods to create a description or snapshot of these OLEs, as they exist
prior to a professional development intervention, does not seem to exist in the literature. A context that is
comparable to the present study appears in Swan (2019), which presents the results of the CoI Survey
186
conducted with 34 students in an online composition course. However, the rationale for that study focus on
the efficacy of the CoI survey as a means for administrators to assess a program rather than addressing
semiotic resources, how semiotic resources function in the OLE and how they are exploited by. Arguably,
no evidence in the literature elicits student perceptions of semiotic resources in the OLE and their
contribution to the CoI presences or integrates instructor perceptions and an examination of the OLE via
content analysis to create an overall survey of practice.
Comparisons between the outcomes of the pre-intervention stage described here and analogues in
the literature are sparse. Of course, Garrison et al. (2000) considered all three presences in their seminal
CoI work, but this was purely theoretical. The causal relationships among teaching, social and cognitive
presences are explored in Garrison et al., (2010b), who view the CoI framework from a student perspective.
However, beyond these, we have to piece together an overall comparison by consulting studies that employ
individual elements that are brought together in the present study and reflect on the results to see if they are
similar or comparable. For example, Hosler and Arend (2012) employed the CoI survey to examine the
relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. They found that students are aware of the
influence of teaching presence on their critical thinking and relate critical thinking to the overall design of
the subject and the learning environment (p. 226). This is similar to how students in this study revealed that
the UI/Design of the OLE contributed to establishing cognitive presence (see §6.8.3.).
Students’ perceptions of social presence in this study reflect those found in Mathieson and Leafman
(2014) who described specific areas in which students felt significantly lower levels of social presence than
instructors. Like this study, the limitations and impersonal nature of the LMS in that study seemed to play
a large role in making students slightly uncomfortable in communicating with and getting to know their
peers. In addition, Mathieson and Leafman acknowledge that instructors “enjoy a position of control in the
[OLE] that students do not, which may explain their increased comfort interacting and participating in this
setting” (Mathieson & Leafman, 2014, p. 16). There are also examples in the literature that explore
connections between one or more of the CoI presences and other frameworks or epistemologies, consistent
with the present study; for example, the integration of the CoI with Technological, Pedagogical, and
Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Papanikolaou et al., 2014; Makri et al., 2014; Papanikolaou et al., 2017)
and the use of content analysis to aid in the description of CoI presences and the relationship between them
(Shea et al., 2010).
187
Chapter 8 – A Professional Development Intervention.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
– Winston Churchill34
This chapter describes the online professional development intervention I designed, developed, and
delivered to instructor-participants following the survey of practice conducted in Stage 1. The survey
comprised analyses of instructor-participants’ OLEs, interviews with the instructor-participants and their
students’ responses to the adapted COI survey. The intervention was originally designed as a two-hour,
face-to-face workshop for instructors based in Australia, and two one-hour online sessions delivered
synchronously for instructors based in Korea on the Community of Inquiry framework (COI) and
multimodal social semiotics. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, all the instructor-participants were
working from home, which rendered face-to-face workshops impossible. In order to provide all the
participants with the same experience as far as practicable, I therefore designed the intervention to be
delivered through an online learning environment (OLE). This enabled the re-designed intervention to focus
on both practice – establishing and maintaining teaching, social and cognitive presence to create a
community of inquiry - and on modelling practice, with attention to the use of various semiotic resources
in OTL.
Figure 8.1 Intervention Research Design
The use of semiotic resources in the intervention is both explicit and implicit. Explicit use
highlights resources based on the responses to the COI survey, discussions in semi-structured interviews
with instructors and observations from the content analysis used in the pre-intervention stage of the study
and reported and discussed in Chapters 6 & 7. Conversely, implicit use occurs when I employ resources
that model or demonstrate concepts; my contention being that, as an instructor, it is incumbent on me to
34 Possibly. While many sources, including the OECD (2019), attribute this quote to Churchill, the actual origin is debated.
Nevertheless, it is apropos.
188
consider each behaviour as a potential model for participants. The choices I make in terms of resource use
in the intervention OLE are based on my experience as an educational designer and TESOL educator and
on my interpretation of the literature. The choice of resources replicates the way participants choose to use
resources in their own teaching. Choices are also a result of my understanding of the audience - in particular,
the context and experiences of participants revealed during interviews. As a result, I am able to scaffold
participants’ understanding of the concepts discussed. If successful, the content of the intervention will
result in an increased number of resources being observed and more effectively employed in participants’
OLEs. Further, there should be an observable shift in students’ responses (an increase in scores) to questions
about their perceptions of the contribution of different resources to the three presences in the COI survey.
This chapter reports the rationale behind the professional development intervention and the desired
development outcomes, a justification of the semiotic resources that I chose to highlight based on the pre-
intervention stage of the study, a description of the design, development, and delivery of the professional
development intervention, and finally the results of the COI survey completed by intervention participants.
8.1. Rationale
There are two motives behind the inclusion of a professional development intervention focused on
the use of semiotic resources in OTL in the study. The first relates to the centrality of professional
development in TESOL teacher education, where teachers are expected to constantly (and consistently)
reshape their understanding of the practice of teaching and learning (Farrell, 2007, 2018). Teachers are
sometimes characterised as continual learners (Richards & Farrell, 2005) Professional development is
sometimes mandated by employers and professional associations and often pursued by teachers throughout
their career (Farrell, 2015). Teachers, noted Dewey (1933), who don’t reflect on their practice are likely to
become slaves to routine, and be guided by impulse, tradition, and authority instead of making informed
decisions based on their experience in the classroom. For professional development to be effective it needs
to include an element designed to enable teachers to reflect on their own practice. Therefore, the
professional development intervention developed here responds to the need to be relevant to instructors’
needs, be engaging and elicit details about participants’ contexts, and create an atmosphere where they feel
comfortable with sharing their ideas and experiences. Finally, it needs to encourage participants to reflect
on their current practice and identify where they might be able to do something differently to enhance their
practice in online teaching and learning (OTL). The second motive relates to RQ2, namely, evaluating the
efficacy of a professional development intervention in assisting TESOL instructors to implement semiotic
resources in their OLEs in ways that contribute to the COI presences. To evaluate the intervention, the
results from the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study are compared – the presupposition being that
mean scores for COI survey items will increase post-intervention, while the frequency and type of semiotic
resources observed in the content analyses of OLEs in the post-intervention stages of the study will reflect
the semiotic resources discussed in the intervention (Chapter 8 – Results: Post-intervention Survey of
Practice).
189
8.2. Design, Development & Delivery
The professional development intervention is subject to the same process of “building” an OLE as that
encountered by instructor-participants. I refer to this process as design, development, and delivery. There
are several different approaches to planning and implementing an online course (e.g., Ally, 2004; Anderson,
2004; Caplan, 2004; Thiessen & Ambrock, 2004). The design, development and delivery approach used in
the present study is modelled on the Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) cycle
suggested by Morrison (2010). Here, I assume that analysis in the ADDIE model is one of the earliest parts
of the design phase and incorporates identifying students’ needs and deciding on the feasibility of delivering
the subject online. Similarly, the evaluation stage in the ADDIE model refers to an evaluation of the
delivery of a subject and its relative success or failure. In my simpler model, evaluation occurs at the same
time as the delivery of a subject since evaluation (and reflection) occurs, and continues to occur, throughout
the duration of a subject. Design, development, and delivery is defined in Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1.
Table 8.1 Design, Development & Delivery Approach
Design
Development
Delivery
Preparing a subject for delivery
online includes:
1. Identification/confirmation of
required infrastructure and
support (usually institutional).
2. Determination of subject
alignment with other subjects
in school, faculty, and
institution.
3. Articulation of learning
outcomes.
4. Determination of scope and
structure of content outlined in
syllabus.
Identification of assessments.
Content creation by instructor(s)
and/or educational developers:
5. Mapping of subject content to
learning outcomes.
6. Organisation of content into
time-bound units of instruction
(topics/weeks/modules)
7. Production of content in the
LMS.
When students gain access to the
LMS, and content is made
available:
1. Content is delivered or
otherwise “taught” consistent
with best practice.
2. Formal and informal
feedback and assessment
practices take place.
3. Formal and informal
reflection on the efficacy of
online delivery.
4. Formal and informal
feedback about delivery and
content elicited from
students.
Figure 8.2 The Abbreviated ADDIE Model Incorporating Ongoing Development
The remainder of this section describes the design, development, and delivery of the professional
development intervention. I justify the decisions I made in each of these phases with reference to relevant
literature, best practice, experience and, most importantly, the findings from the pre-intervention stage.
190
8.2.1. Design
The design of a subject for online delivery seldom happens in a vacuum. There is always a reason behind
the choice to deliver a subject online, and these reasons can vary greatly. Responding to student demand,
as support for face-to-face offerings, institutions identifying and attempting to take advantage of potential
(or perceived) cost savings from delivering subjects online are some of the reasons reported in the literature
(e.g., Allen & Seaman, 2007; Downes, 2008). Like many subjects being prepared for the second half of
2020, the professional development intervention was designed and developed to be delivered online
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, the term emergency remote teaching (ERT) was
coined (e.g., Hodges et al., 2020). Definitions of ERT vary in the literature, which is not surprising given
that the associated phenomenon is relatively new. However, the definition articulated by Robson and Mills
(2022) appears the most appropriate. Emergency remote teaching is defined as:
[A] rapid, system-wide pivot to remote education practices in response to emergencies that
disrupt normal institutional processes.
(Robson & Mills, 2022, p. 1)
I make note of ERT and the pandemic here because it dominated the context in which the design,
development and delivery of the professional development intervention took place. For example, the sudden
(literally overnight) changes from face-to-face or blended to fully online delivery, having to become
acquainted with new software platforms in a noticeably brief period, while also responding to students’
anxiety and frustration at the situation; all feature in the literature (e.g., Bissessar, 2022; Erdem-Aydin,
2021; Martin et al., 2022; Shohel et al., 2022; Tarchi et al., 2022). Many of these external factors were
experienced by the instructors in this study in addition to the disruptions to their own lives away from the
classroom.
Notwithstanding these interruptions, the overall design of the intervention – which I came to label
“OTL in TESOL” – employed tasks that were meant to engage participants in higher-order thinking (cf.
Bloom, 1956; Gagne, 1977), consistent with cognitivist approaches to language learning taught in teacher
education in TESOL programs. The literature on curriculum and syllabus design in TESOL provides
examples of these kinds of tasks. In general, they involve the application, evaluation, and synthesis of
domain-specific content (e.g., Li, 2020), and are characterised by learners producing some sort of product
or artefact that incorporates multiple semiotic resources. The desired outcome would be that learners
communicate, or preferably demonstrate, their understanding of the content.
Although the pandemic caused a change in the design, development and delivery of the intervention, the
relative freedom and flexibility I enjoy as an individual researcher meant that I was able to gear delivery
towards the needs of participants during a particularly challenging time.
8.2.1.1. Infrastructure
The first step in creating OTL in TESOL for participants was the selection of a learning
management system (LMS). Initially, Google Classroom and Moodle were considered, but they were
191
ultimately ruled out. Google Classroom is not suited to small groups of students and provides few
opportunities to exploit the semiotic resources I wanted to emphasise, for example layout and video.
Moodle, on the other hand, offers more options but requires institutional support, which would be difficult
to provide for participants from different institutions. In the end, I decided to use a platform called Notion
(Notion Labs Inc., 2022) as the LMS for the intervention. Originally conceived as a customer relationship
management application, Notion allows users to create web pages without having to code using CSS and
HTML, and to embed within the user interface almost any HTML5 compliant object, e.g., video, images,
audio, editable forms, and interactive tasks created in H5P. Participants accessed the OLE created in Notion
via a web browser and did not require any other software. However, more advanced participants could
choose to download a dedicated Notion application for iOS, Android, Windows or MacOS.
8.2.1.2. Learning Outcomes35
The professional development intervention had three learning outcomes, designed to bridge RQ1
and RQ2 and provide relevant professional development to participants.
By the end of the course, participants would be able to…
• Define teaching, social and cognitive presence by discussing examples of teaching, social, and
cognitive presence in their own teaching (i.e., participants likely do many things in the OLE already
consistent with the CoI framework).
• Identify different semiotic resources within the OLE by discussing how they function.
• Articulate at least one “SMART36” Goal for implementing semiotic resources in their OLE for the
coming semester.
The first concentrates on supporting participants’ understanding of the CoI as a framework that informs
both the design and evaluation of OLEs. The second focuses on the potential for semiotic resources to shape
and support teaching, social and cognitive presence. Finally, the third outcome asks participants to consider
the knowledge they build by completing the course and to make a plan to implement this in their own
teaching context. The outcomes were articulated to participants and reflect, in chronological in order, a
move from theory, to practice, and to a goal setting task at the end of the intervention. This is a common
practice and fosters participants’ accountability for their learning (Morin, 2014). Aligned with the three
overall desired outcomes, additional, module-specific learning outcomes were also articulated at the
beginning of each module.
35 Learning outcomes describe what an instructor “hopes” participants will be able to achieve by the conclusion of the course. In
order for participants to achieve these outcomes, I have to provide scaffolding of participants’ understanding by establishing a
community of inquiry, modelling the use of semiotic resources, and providing examples (Alonso et al., 2008; Mahanta & Ahmed,
2012; Kang, 2020). The outcomes reflect my beliefs and values in terms of the efficacy of the Community of Inquiry framework,
semiotic resources, and the importance of so-called takeaways in professional development (Matthes, et al., 2002; van Berkel &
Dolmans, 2006; Grasl et al., 2020).
36 SMART – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (Doran et al., 1981).
192
8.2.1.3. Structure and Assessment
The program followed a simple linear structure (illustrated in Figure 8.2), suitable for the limited amount
of time participants had available between teaching sessions, and the impact of the pandemic. This structure
also focused separately on each of the three presences in the CoI. In common with most professional
development, no formal assessment task was included in OTL in TESOL. However, participants were asked
to complete a short form if they wanted to receive a certificate of completion for the program to include in
their professional development portfolios. As OTL in TESOL was a stand-alone instance of professional
development, there was no need to consider its alignment with other programs.
Figure 8.3 OTL in TESOL Structure Presented in Notion
8.2.2. Development
The development of the content for each module in OTL in TESOL followed the same process.
For the sake of simplicity and to save time (having altered plans due to the pandemic), I approached each
module as if it were a language-based/Grammar lesson presenting content for the first time and incorporated
a “presentation-practice-production (PPP)” lesson sequence. This resulted in the three modules sharing a
similar structure and employing the same sequence of task types. To elaborate, as participants proceed
through the intervention, cognitive demands on participants grow, as they are asked to analyse what they
are reading or viewing, then to evaluate it in terms of their own contexts and, finally, to synthesise some
sort of product or digital artefact in response to the content by the end of the module (e.g., Bloom, 1965).
Each module begins with a brief overview of the module along with the specific learning outcomes for that
module (Figure 8.4). Then, the core concepts introduced in the module are presented using a combination
of different semiotic resources such as text, image and video (Figure 8.5). Each module provides an
opportunity for participants to interact with their peers through commenting (Figure 8.3), thus enabling
some co-creation of knowledge. Unlike Google Classroom which shows replies in chronological order
down the page, or Moodle where dedicated forums are used to engage students in discussion, Notion allows
users to highlight any object on the page and add their comment against it. The results of this process are
illustrated in Figure 8.4:
193
Figure 8.4 Discussion via Comments in Notion (Anonymised).
Finally, a task at the end of each module provides the opportunity for participants to check their
understanding of the concepts discussed in the module and attempts to steer them towards applying these
concepts in their own OLE. These final tasks are somewhat freer than the presentation of the presences and
more restricted tasks concentrating only on the topic of the module. Consistent with the production stage
in a PPP lesson and the practical inquiry model (cognitive presence) in the CoI, the final task in each module
asks participants to integrate new information with their existing knowledge in a way that is contextually
relevant to them.
Overall, I estimated participants would need a total of three hours to complete the course. This is
approximately double the length of the face-to-face session originally planned, but instead of a single
session, participants were able to complete the program over the approximately two-week period that was
available to them. Each of the main modules was estimated to take approximately 40 minutes to complete.
The introductory and “getting started” modules were expected to take approximately 30 minutes in total,
and the final summary module approximately 30 minutes.
194
Figure 8.5 Overview & Learning Outcomes in Notion
Overview and Learning Outcomes in the Practical Inquiry Model module of OTL in TESOL. Note the hyperlinks to
the right of the content. These appear on every page in the same position to aid navigation. Likewise, the
“Breadcrumbs”, a trail of links and icons (top left) which help users navigate back to the home page in the LMS.
Figure 8.6 Practical Inquiry Model (PIM) Core Concepts in Notion
The core concepts of the Practical Inquiry Model (cognitive presence) are presented to participants as text, and then
in a video.
195
Figure 8.7 Commenting in Notion
8.2.3. Participant Recruitment
The number of instructors participating in the overall study at this point was seven. Tayla and Sam
completed the professional development course before exiting the study while Zoe and Ava began their
participation by completing it. The seven instructors represent a reasonably small cohort for a professional
development course, or even a face-to-face workshop. Therefore, I decided to recruit an additional five
instructors solely to participate in OTL in TESOL believing that this would engender more commenting
and interaction between participants and lessen the chances of participants being able to identify each other.
Additional participants had to be TESOL instructors, i.e., engaged in the teaching of pre- and in-service
English teachers, in a TESOL program delivered in a higher education context and similar to those the
original participants taught in. These additional participants would also have to be able to commit to the
estimated three hours needed to complete the course asynchronously.
At the same time, KoreaTESOL (KOTESOL) and AsiaTEFL, two of the largest TESOL
organisations in Asia, were scheduled to hold a joint conference that had been postponed because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. With many TESOL instructors thus missing out on one of the more enjoyable
professional development opportunities of the year, I advertised OTL in TESOL in two posts to Facebook:
one on the page for the 2020 AsiaTEFL international conference and one on the KoreaTESOL international
conference page. This resulted in an additional 12 instructors expressing interest in joining the program, of
whom nine participated after providing informed consent. Additional participant data was restricted to
contributions to the professional development intervention LMS via comments and responses to the CoI
survey instrument (see §8.4, below, and Appendix E).
196
8.2.4. Delivery
OTL in TESOL was available to students for approximately two weeks in late June 2020, timed to
coincide with the summer break between teaching sessions for participants in the Southern hemisphere and
the winter break for participants in the Northern hemisphere. Prior to beginning, each participant was
enrolled in the course via Notion and received an automated email with links to the course and support
resources for setting a password and managing their Notion account. As the course was fully asynchronous,
the number of participants’ contributions varied over the two weeks. In this section, I will describe how its
modules were delivered by highlighting the presentation of the PIM and cognitive presence, the restricted
task and discussion associated with social presence, and the final, broader task from the goal setting module.
8.2.4.1. Cognitive Presence and the PIM
The CoI and results of the CoI survey instrument are usually reported in the order of teaching
presence, social presence and, finally, cognitive presence. While there is significant interdependence
between the three presences, it seems logical from a chronological point of view that an instructor plans
(teaching presence), rallies their students around the core concepts of the course and builds a feeling of
community (social presence), and that this engenders a climate where inquiry and critical thinking can take
place (cognitive presence). Instead, OTL in TESOL begins with the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM), the
basis of cognitive presence. This decision was motivated by research highlighting the difficulties instructors
have in advancing students beyond the exploration stage of the model (Garrison, 2017; Garrison et al., 2001;
Luebeck & Bice, 2005; McKlin et al., 2005; Meyer, 2003; 2004; Murphy, 2004; Newman et al., 2005;
Vaughn & Garrison, 2005). The PIM has several TESOL-based cognates, for example the Teaching and
Learning Cycle (Christie, 2005) and the Task Cycle (Willis & Willis, 2007) used in task-based learning
and teaching (TBLT) approaches. To illustrate the similarities between the PIM and TESOL approaches,
participants were presented with an interactive diagram of the PIM allowing them to click on the various
parts of the model and see more information (Figure 8.7). Participants were also asked to look at a figure
illustrating the PIM with the learning and teaching cycle superimposed and asked to comment on the
similarities and differences between the two models (Figure 8.8). This in itself was planned as a so-called
triggering event – the initial stage of the PIM that captures learners’ attention and motivates them to explore
the concept or idea further. It was also an attempt to make a connection between the instructor-participants’
prior knowledge and the new knowledge they were going to encounter in this module.
197
Figure 8.8 An Interactive Version of the Practical Inquiry Model.
Figure 8.9 The Practical Inquiry Model Overlayed with The Teaching & Learning Cycle
The Practical Inquiry Model overlayed with the Teaching & Learning Cycle used in the first module of OTL in TESOL.
The mapping of a part of the CoI framework to a framework known to participants attempts to contextualise the CoI
and link it to prior knowledge of the participants.
8.2.4.2. Social Presence
In addition to discussion, participants completed a series of comprehension-checking questions based on
the information and discussion in the module. The ability to provide participants with timely (albeit generic)
feedback via H5P (Joubel, 2022) is where these kinds of practice tasks provide the most benefit. Feedback
is specific, confirming a correct answer with multiple definitions for different OTL situations while
extending students’ knowledge beyond comprehension by providing further reading. Where a participant’s
response is incorrect, the feedback is meant to be encouraging while prompting the participant to re-think
and change their answer. Figure 8.10 illustrates the comprehension-checking task and the two possible
feedback responses available based on participant answers.
Instructor-participants were conscious of the distance between instructor and students in OTL and
the importance of interaction, as demonstrated by Instructor Michelle who noted in her interview:
198
I think [students] find online learning difficult sometimes because the social element is
missing. Getting students to interact with each other means they have to be comfortable
with each other.
Michelle (Classes A & B)
The module in OTL in TESOL on social presence garnered the most discussion via the comments. These
included soliciting ideas from each other surrounding the use of video to increase social presence, for
example:
I'd love any suggestions on programs to do some of these things - I imagine people's
learning management systems and access vary widely, but especially easy ways for
students to create and share videos would be great.
(Participant 9)37
They also included settling on the idea that producing short introductory videos for students was not
necessarily as burdensome for instructors as it could be:
I agree with [Participant 9.]. One of the turn offs for me as a teacher is when you go to a
PD workshop and must sign up for random apps or sites your [sic] will never use again
(and get their junk forever) - I prefer the more practical, universal tools like the example
of the intro videos.
(Tayla, Class C)
8.2.4.3. Teaching Presence
At least a third of the instructor actions indicating teaching presence in the CoI occur prior to the
beginning of a course as the instructor designs and develops the module. This makes it difficult to model
aspects of design and organisation in the intervention, which would include the choice of Notion,
sequencing the modules and either finding content (e.g., video content) or adding content to the OLE during
design and development of the program. In addition, choices made about scaffolding techniques and
strategies for planning discourse were already familiar to the participants. As a result, the teaching presence
module employed fewer non-linguistic semiotic resources compared to the others and relied on written
language to convey the key concepts of teaching presence. However, this did not seem to negatively impact
the participants’ experience, as judged by the amount of discussion that took place and the instructors
concluding by themselves that teaching presence was critical for establishing social and cognitive presence.
In one instance it was possible to trace a participant’s thinking on teaching presence as they
progressed through the module and began to change their point of view. Participant 8 initially was sceptical
of teaching presence as a valid conceptualisation of what teachers do in the OLE:
Why do you call this "teaching presence." for me, "teaching" is more closely related to the
students. "instructional presence" (for me) is the broader term that suggests all the
background and non-classroom matters tied to teaching...
(Participant 8)
37 Non-study participants were not assigned pseudonyms.
199
Concerned that teaching presence resulted in a teacher-centric experience in the OLE, Participant 8
continued:
For me, teaching presence evokes the feel of "the teacher is teaching" […] but Instructional
Presence, to me, would suggest design and organisation, discourse facilitation and direct
instruction…
(Participant 8)
Despite using the term “instructor presence” in two separate comments, it was unclear whether Participant
8 was aware of the possibility of an additional “instructor presence” being added to the CoI or the splitting
of teaching presence into two based on when teacher action takes place. However, the idea expressed here
is consistent with those in the literature, for example in Swan and Shih (2005) (see §2.5.2.). By the third
comment, it appears that Participant 8 was at least beginning to see the benefit of teaching presence as a
construct:
"[F]acilitating discourse" is based on a communicative model of teaching/learning that is
the current pop [sic] design, but as the history of language teaching methods (and any
other teaching methods) shows, these things come and go. Quite simply, there is no
meaningful discourse if the design and (direct) instruction are poor.
(Participant 8)
Participant 8’s final comment could reflect confusion of “facilitating discourse” with “open and affective
communication”, and it was also unclear whether this comment was truly critical of communicative
language teaching approaches or just pointing out that approaches develop and change over time. However,
the point that “meaningful discourse” is predicated on design and organisation and direct instruction sums
up why teaching presence is important in terms of establishing the other presences. Notably, Participant 8’s
contributions could also be read as someone progressing through the PIM, being triggered, exploring, and
integrating content with their existing knowledge and/or experience.
200
Figure 8.10 Concept Checking Tasks and Feedback in H5P
Participants completed a series of comprehension-checking questions in the social presence module
201
Finally, the “SMART” goal setting task at the end of the OTL in TESOL course exemplifies the
kind of broader or freer task that participants are asked to engage in. These tasks call on students not only
to draw on the content of the module or course but also to integrate it with their existing knowledge. I
considered the best way to do this was to have participants make direct connections between the content
they had encountered in the course and their teaching context/OLE. Figure 8.11 illustrates aspects of the
task that were embedded in the module.
On one hand, the “SMART” goal setting task is an implicit model of best practice and use of
semiotic software within the OLE; The task, created in H5P, is presented in a form similar to a PowerPoint
presentation (Microsoft, 2022), with each slide containing either instructions, information on SMART
Goals, or a prompt against which participants write their responses. The task walks participants through
each of the SMART elements one at a time, posing a question via a prompt, and then a participants can
enter their response into a text field below. The prompts are open ended, and the response area allows
participants to provide as much or as little detail as they feel is appropriate. Finally, at the end of the task,
participants are encouraged to export their responses and save them as a document they can refer to during
the next teaching session.
On the other hand, the task is specifically designed to scaffold students towards the integration
phase of the PIM and ultimately the resolution. The task asks participants to focus on analysing and
evaluating the information and knowledge they have been exposed to and explored in the intervention, and
to consider how they could apply this to their own practice online. The “SMART” goal setting task is
designed to engender reflective practice during the teaching session and help participants to implement the
ideas they had been exposed to during the intervention. In addition, the participants’ responses here
provided a starting point for the second round of semi-structured interviews in the post-intervention stage
of the study.
These broader, freer tasks at the end of each module were also an opportunity to employ or model
semiotic resources most relevant to the module. The SMART Goals task in the last module incorporates
numerous semiotic resources (typography, colour, and icons) that have mostly instructional functions. Icons
are used to indicate parts of the task requiring a participant response, and colour is used to highlight different
concepts in the SMART framework and other tasks. In Plate 7.8, a selection of slides from the task are
presented including: the title slide; the instructions; a recap of the SMART framework; two examples of
questions or prompts for the SMART framework, namely, a text prompt asking participants to respond to
the specificity of their Goal and the measurability of their goal; and finally, instructions for exporting and
downloading their responses at the end of the task.
202
Figure 8.11 “SMART” Goal setting task created in H5P
Title Slide Instructions Recap of SMART Framework
Participants respond to the specificity of their goal Participants respond to measurability Instructions for exporting and downloading
Pages from the “SMART” Goal setting task created in H5P (Joubel, 2022). At the end of the OTL in TESOL professional development intervention, participants are able to export
their responses to each of the writing prompts in a Microsoft Word (Microsoft, 2022) document at the end of the task to take away and refer to after the conclusion of the course.
203
Although participants complete the SMART Goals task individually, there is still an element of
constructivism in that their responses are the culmination of the co-constructed knowledge built over the
course. Moreover, the design and organisation of the task – a subcategory of teaching presence – is such
that the step-by step approach – having participants think about something specific, then consider what is
measurable about it, then what is achievable and so on – is an example of procedural scaffolding, i.e.,
specifically pre-planned by the instructor, in the Vygotskian tradition of the Zone of Proximal Development
(Vygotsky, 1983/1987).
Finally, the task required participants to evaluate their own level of knowledge, analyse what they
know in terms of what could be implemented in their teaching context, and ultimately apply this. As a result,
this is another example of a task integrating levels of higher order thinking described by Bloom (1965). Put
another way, the introduction of SMART Goals and the task is a triggering event. Students explore and
integrate their understanding of the CoI and semiotic resources based on the course with the new knowledge
of the SMART framework and create an appropriate goal that will lead them to a resolution; although,
admittedly, that resolution may occur some weeks or even months later, when the participants re-examine
their goals and can determine whether they have been successful. This process is, of course, the Practical
Inquiry Model in practice and an example of cognitive presence.
8.3. Semiotic Resources in the Professional Development Intervention
The choices of resources to emphasise in the intervention were informed by the frequency with
which resources were observed in the content analysis, students’ perceptions, and instructor needs identified
in interviews. My choices of semiotic resources in the OLE are the same as those faced by participants.
Instructors must work within the constraints set by the LMS or the institution, while optimising content for
delivery. However, I was informed by the results of the modified CoI survey administered to students in
the pre-intervention stage of the study (see Chapter 6), which elicited which semiotic resources the students
perceived as contributing to each of the three CoI presences. These results are presented in Figures 8.1
(teaching presence), 8.2 (social presence) and 8.3 (cognitive presence) and include a facsimile of my
original annotations added to the charts. These annotations provide insight into the design and development
of the intervention and the potential for semiotic resources to establish, maintain or be indicators of presence.
It is unlikely that instructors would gather this data on a regular basis. However, an awareness of the
potential of semiotic resources for OTL among instructors, supplemented by the results of periodic
administration of the survey instrument, could contribute to the ongoing development of an OLE or a course,
as well as provide a useful reflective task for instructors. Based on these data, and reasons I explain next, I
chose to concentrate on the use of three specific semiotic resources in the OTL in the TESOL course: layout,
icons, and video.
204
Figure 8.12 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Teaching Presence – All Classes, Pre-intervention
Design &
Orgnisation
Discourse
Facilitation
Direct
Instruction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Expected increase
because of the
COVID19 Pandemic
Layout and design as
indicators of teaching
presence? (design &
organisation)
Chat/comment actions as
indicators of discourse
facilitation = original
indicator (Garrison et al.,
2000)
205
Figure 8.13 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Social Presence – All Classes, Pre-intervention
Affective Comm
Open Comm
Group Cohesion
0
10
20
30
40
Written instructions
as #1 contribution to
social presence?
Do students prefer
explicit instructions
for how and why they
will “talk to each
other” online?
Does the overuse of profile pics
in Google have a negative
impact on group cohesion? Too
many will indicate less
cohesion.
Instructor intro videos and unit/module introductions.
Video walk-thru of assessment requirements? Perhaps
open communication but better as direct instruction
(teaching presence) indicator?
Expected increase
because of the
COVID19 Pandemic
206
Figure 8.14 Semiotic Resources Contributing to Cognitive Presence – All Classes, Pre-intervention
Trigger &
Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
0
10
20
30
40
50
Reasonable to expect all of these (except
layout?) to contribute to phases of PIM to
some extent?
Sequencing of
objects on the
screen useful for
indicating where
exploration ends,
integration starts?
(Probably better
suited to teaching
presence (design &
organisation)
Expected increase
because of the
COVID19 Pandemic
207
8.3.1. Videoconferencing?
Responses to the CoI Survey show that students perceived synchronous videoconferencing as
contributing more to cognitive presence than social presence. This seems inconsistent with reports in the
literature (e.g., Knapp, 2018; Maher, 2020) that show a positive correlation between videoconferencing and
social presence. However, at the time of the intervention, it was clear that videoconferencing would play a
much larger role in the instructors’ OLEs in the post-intervention stage of the study because of the Pandemic.
Subsequently, and despite the potential benefits to social presence, videoconferencing was not emphasised
in the course. Instead, the social presence module explicitly focused on the use of pre-recorded video and
the potential for increasing social presence through introducing not only content but also the instructor to
students.
8.3.2. Layout
The overall layout of the OLE was identified by students as the semiotic resource that most
contributes to both teaching (Figure 8.1) and cognitive presence (Figure 8.3), and as the third most
identified resource for social presence behind “being mentioned by name” and written instructions for
social presence (Figure 8.2). Therefore, it was important to create an OLE for the professional development
intervention that modelled overall layout that was clear (e.g., containing sufficient white space) and
consistent across all of the modules in the LMS (e.g., repetition in terms of users finding the same kinds of
items in the same place in the OLE). Research examining layout, usability and navigation within websites
is an area of considerable interest in the literature on user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) research.
For example, Dianat et al. (2019) report layout as a key factor in user satisfaction; and Surrency (2021)
suggests that layout, in concert with intuitive navigation, “chunked” information, and clear and concise
instructions are key to usability in an OLE. Again, Notion proved to be particularly useful in this respect,
allowing me to create “chunks” or blocks of information and other objects in the OLE such as video and
images, and to drag and drop them around the page to personalise and streamline the content of each module.
This resulted in a clear path for participants to follow down the page.
Layout flexibility was a significant factor in the decision to use Notion as the LMS for the
intervention. In addition to the ability to comment on any item on a page, noted above, Notion allows text,
image, video and audio to be placed anywhere on a page simply by dragging and dropping it into the desired
space. This is less restrictive than Google Classroom or Moodle, so that the design and development of the
OLE was not restricted to one of a small number of predetermined layouts or templates. Similar or related
objects in the OLE can be placed together to create more context around the content or a task. The trade-
off is that, unlike Google Classroom or Moodle, Notion does not allow instructors to collect students’ marks
or provide feedback in a more integrated way through a gradebook module – something which would
normally be found in an educationally-focused LMS.
208
Layout was not explicitly taught in the intervention, due to the vast scope of layout, user interface
(UI) and user experience (UX) theories and fundamental practices being difficult to accommodate in a
course that takes three to four hours to complete. Instead, effective use of layout in an OLE was modelled
implicitly. The intervention followed a systematic design approach that emerged from the work of Gagné
(1970) and Gagné et al. (1981). While developed before the advent of networked computing, this approach
enjoys widespread use in online medical education (e.g., Azar et al., 2021; Gavarkovs et al, 2019; van
Leeuwen et al., 2019; Yoo et al., 2019) and English language teaching (e.g., Boukhechba et al., 2019;
Kusumawati, 2020). Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction model is broadly comparable to approaches used
in language-focused (e.g., grammar and vocabulary) lessons, consistent with the Presentation, Practice,
Production (PPP) approach adopted in the design of the intervention. Figure 7.4 compares Gagné’s
approach with PPP, illustrating their compatibility.
Figure 8.15 Gangé’s (1971) Nine Events of Instruction vs. the PPP Lesson Sequence
The decision to approach layout and the organisation of the OLE in general using this approach was based
on expediency during the design and development of the intervention, which saved time and made building
the content in Notion simple. In addition, participants were familiar with the presentation-practice-
production sequence and would expect to find the content online presented in a logical and consistent
manner.
209
8.3.3. Icons and Emoji
Although the students did not rate icons and emojis as highly as other semiotic resources for
establishing any of the three presences (Figures 7.1 – 7.3), these resources were present in all the OLEs
examined in Stage 1. Class D, for example, contains hundreds of icons in the OLE, that fulfil instructional
and navigational functions (see §6.3.3.). At the opposite end of the spectrum, just 20 icons were observed
in Classes A and B (see §6.3.1.) Thus, while there is considerable difference in the frequency with which
they appear, it is clear that icons, whether purposefully chosen by instructors or automatically added by the
LMS, are present in OLEs. In the intervention, the use of iconography was not explicitly presented or
discussed with participants. Figure 8.4 presents the icons that were employed to fulfil various functions in
the OLE, but we can also see in Figures 8.2 – 8.6 the high frequency with which they occur within the
landscape of the OLE.
The intervention provides an authentic use of icons in an OLE unrestricted by an LMS. A set of
icons (Freepik, 2021) was selected to represent each of the modules and to implement what is called You-
are-here navigation (Farrell, S., 2015), helping users to orient themselves in the OLE.
Figure 8.16 Icon Use in OTL in TESOL
A second group of icons were chosen to represent different kinds of tasks, interactions and content
in the OLE: watching a video, a (responsive) task, file for download, discussion/comment, a quote, and
references. These are shown in Figure 8.16. Combined, both kinds of icon serve to help users understand,
firstly, where they are in the OLE. There are other semiotic resources that can be utilised to communicate
you-are-here messages to users: headings (i.e., employing larger typeface to indicate a new topic); colour,
such as the red callouts used to highlight instructions, and ordering of items on the page (sequentially –
either vertically or horizontally); and ordered and unordered lists can help users to understand the context
and where they are in the OLE. Overall, iconography was employed in the intervention navigationally,
helping participants to identify both where they were within the OLE and where they could, or should, go
next; and instructionally, signalling that an object on the screen was one of a predetermined set of tasks or
resources.
Modules:
Home
Getting
Started
Practical
Inquiry
Social
Presence
Teaching
Presence
Summary
Tasks:
Watch
Task
Files or
Resources
Discussion
Quote
References
210
Figure 8.17 Use of the “Watch” Icon.
Each task in the OLE is prefaced by the appropriate icon identifying the kind of task. Instructions are highlighted in
a red box referred to as a “callout”, and instruction verbs utilise a bold typeface to also aid in emphasising the kind
of task.
The number of emoji revealed by the content analyses in the pre-intervention stage was low, and
students didn’t indicate in their responses that emoji contributed to presences to any great extent. However,
two emoji were used consistently throughout the course. Unable to use the Unicode right triangle (U+25B6)
in text in Notion, I used the equivalent emoji – the right-pointing triangle38 () – in instructions to describe
the toggle button that allows users to expand hidden sections, e.g.,” Click on each of the toggles () to
show ideas”. Similarly, at the bottom of each page, an up-pointing triangle () emoji replaces the Unicode
version to indicate a hyperlink that takes the user back to the top of the page. While we usually consider
them as a way of expressing emotion in the OLE, e.g., grinning face (), emoji use here works as a
substitute for other semiotic resources in written text. In this case the toggle symbol (right triangle)
(U+25B6). Figure 8.17 highlights the case of the use of emoji for functions other than the expression of
emotion.
38 For describing emoji, I use the Full Emoji List, v.14.0 [https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html] (Unicode
Consortium, 2021), and specifically, use the Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) short names to describe individual emoji
characters. Although The Full Emoji List uses American English, other variants of English may have different keywords. This
thesis uses Australian English. See for example, (🛗) Elevator (Am.Eng.) versus (🛗) Lift (Aus.Eng.).
211
Figure 8.18 Emoji Supporting Navigation
Emoji functioning as a way of supporting navigation in the OLE or you-are-here navigation (Farrell, S., 2015)
8.3.4. Video
Three factors contributed to the choice to address the use of videos in the professional development
intervention: students’ responses to the CoI survey indicated that video was perceived as contributing to
the presences, the increase in video resources mentioned in TESOL research and professional literature,
and the growing likelihood of video forming a large part of delivery in the face of the pandemic. Therefore,
the modelling of video in the OLE was explicit and drew participants’ attention to a collection of
introductory videos from numerous source OLEs from different disciplines. These illustrated how video
was used by instructors in different contexts. The differences in length, video quality, content and context,
and whether or not the instructor could be seen in the video, were identified by the participants as being
contributing factors to whether or not a video would positively contribute to social presence primarily, and
subsequently to teaching and cognitive presence. In addition, participants were asked whether they thought
that the example videos would be a worthwhile, pedagogically sound way to introduce a particular
instructor or concept, and whether they thought the instructor in the example video needed specific digital
literacy and capabilities or knowledge in order to create the video.
The use of video in the intervention elicited a considerable number of comments from the
participants. Initially, the conversation centred on the workload implications for incorporating more video
into the OLE:
All comes down to time. I'd really don't have time to do all this…
(Chloe, Class E)
212
I have really got to lift my intro [sic] video game…!
(Participant 9)
However, attention quickly turned from what to consider as an instructor when creating video in the OLE
to how learners might be better supported in creating video to share in the OLE (and as assessments and
evidence of mastery of concepts):
…this semester my undergrad students had to create short videos (15-90 seconds,
depending on the assignment), and I let them use any technology so long as I could open
their video file... then they had to upload to the campus LMS.
(Participant 8)
I have used Flipgrid with younger adults/teens and they liked the medium. I think I have
also used it for assessment (posting reflective videos). It's user-friendly. [we used]
VoiceThread for microteaching practice in pre- and in-service ESL teacher training. We
have found it is great for Learning-Oriented Assessment and increasing student autonomy.
(Chloe, Class E)
These comments suggest that there was movement away from the participants’ initial reactions to being
asked to consider video use and commenting, towards thinking about the video as a semiotic resource for
OLT more broadly. Consistent with the practical inquiry model, this was evidence of participants
experiencing a triggering event and moving into the exploration stage of the model. One or two participants
went further. Ben (Class C) provided evidence of integration taking place, matching new and existing
knowledge via a comment on a video:
The most compelling reason comes from neuroscience: the brain is a social organ and thus
for plasticity to occur social encounters are needed (check out Cozolino’s work, for
example).
(Ben, Class D)
If participants such as Ben, Chloe, Participant 8 and Participant 9 were moving through the different stages
of the practical inquiry model, it would be useful to see whether they finally moved to the resolution stage.
In this instance, I consider that would be implementing at least one video into their OLE that reflected their
understanding of the content of the intervention. Unfortunately, as Garrison (2017) notes, it has been
difficult to find evidence of this progression. With Participants 8 and 9, it is unlikely I would be able to see
them complete the PIM. However, the design of the present study enabled me to conduct a second survey
of practice with the existing participants in the post-intervention stage. This occurred approximately six
months after the intervention was delivered and provided evidence of a resolution. By comparing the results
from the pre-intervention and post-intervention stages, I was able to corroborate the finding here: there was
a reasonably high level of cognitive presence attached to this particular module in the intervention.
8.4. Community of Inquiry Survey
At the conclusion of the OTL in TESOL course, the CoI survey was administered to the participants
(n=16) via Notion. These results serve as another data set for comparison with the responses elicited in the
pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. In this case, I was the online instructor, and the survey results
213
suggested that I had effectively exploited different types of semiotic resources in the OLE to establish high
levels of teaching, social and cognitive presence. This section presents findings from the survey
administered to intervention participants in mid-2020.
8.4.1. Demographics
Most respondents to the Community of Inquiry survey at the end of OTL in TESOL were aged
between 36 and 55 years of age. Put another way, these respondents, who were TESOL instructors rather
than English teachers, were approximately one age bracket older than respondents to the Community of
Inquiry Survey administered in Stage One of the study. In that stage, most students were aged between 25
and 35 years of age. Unlike the student survey, participants in the OTL in TESOL course were more evenly
split in terms of gender. Just over half identified as male, while one respondent chose not to disclose their
gender and the remaining participants indicated they identified as female. Two thirds of respondents have
a first language other than English. This reflects the 75% of respondents who identified themselves as living
in Asia, although some participants also responded that they lived in Asia and that their first language was
English. The source of recruits to the program (Facebook pages specific to teaching English in Asia) also
accounts for two thirds of participants speaking English as their second language. Table 8.1 summarises
the demographic data collected from participants in the intervention.
8.4.2. Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence
Responses to the 34 items in the CoI survey were scored using a five-point scale from 0 (Strongly
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). In analysing the data from the survey, the mean responses for the 34 items
ranged from 3.80 for Items 5 (The instructor helped me to understand where there are agreements and
disagreements in the theory in this course), 10 (The Instructor developed a sense of community among
students in this course) and 14 (Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in
the course), to 4.73 for Item 23 (Problems and questions posed in the subject increased my interest issues
in TESOL). Standard deviation was highest for Item 10 (S.D= 1.42) and lowest for Item 23 (S.D=0.45).
214
Table 8.2 Professional Development Intervention Participants (OTL in TESOL)
Demographic Information
n
%
Gender
Male
8
Female
7
Prefer not to say
1
Age
25-30
1
31-35
3
36-40
5
41-55
5
61+
1
Prefer not to say
1
Attendance Mode
Online only
16
Residence
Australia
1
Asia
12
North America
3
English Language
First language
5
Second language
11
Highest Qualification
Undergraduate degree
2
Post-graduate degree
11
Other
3
Total Respondents
16
Notes:
Other first languages: Filipino (1), Indonesian (3), Tagalog (2), Arabic (1)
When considering responses overall, Teaching Presence items collectively yield a mean score of 4.25
(S.D=1.13), Social Presence items collectively yield a mean score of 4.05 (S.D=1.04), and Cognitive
Presence items yield a mean score of 4.43 (S.D=0.76). Consistent with my approach in the pre-intervention
stage of the study, I plotted the mean scores for teaching, social and cognitive presence using a radar chart
as a way of visualising the community of inquiry that I had established in OTL in TESOL. Likewise, a
second radar chart, representing the mean scores for each of the presence subcategories, was plotted. Both
of these are presented in Figure 8.18a and 8.18b.
215
Figure 8.19a Community of Inquiry Presences – OTL In TESOL
Figure 8.19b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – OTL In TESOL
Table 8.3 Community of Inquiry – OTL In TESOL
Presence
Mean
Presence Subcategories
Mean
Teaching
4.26
Design & Organisation
4.41
Discourse Facilitation
4.10
Direct Instruction
4.33
Social
4.05
Affective Expression
3.76
Open Communication
4.36
Group Cohesion
4.04
Cognitive
4.44
Trigger & Exploration
4.40
Integration & Resolution
4.50
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitatiom
Direct Instruction
Open Communication
Affective Communication
Group Cohesion
TrigEx
IntRes
216
Similar to what was observed in the pre-intervention stage, the overall mean score for cognitive
presence (4.44) was highest, followed by teaching presence (4.26) then social presence (4.05). This creates
a radar chart that falls away to the left, as seen in Figure 7.5, in the majority of the responses by students
in Classes A – F in the pre-intervention stage. Given the evidence that participants were able to progress
through some of the PIM stages, it was not all that surprising that survey items relating to cognitive presence
had positive responses from participants. However, it was surprising that the integration and resolution
subcategory had the highest mean score of 4.50. Again, identifying or observing resolution is problematic
from a practical point of view, and whether or not learners reach the resolution stage is still contested in the
literature (e.g., Cleveland-Innes, 2018; Garrison, 2007; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007 Richardson et al., 2012).
8.5. Summary
The professional development intervention described in this chapter is an additional, significant
outcome of the present study on its own. It provides a model for conducting professional development in
teacher education in TESOL contexts, focused on social semiotics and the CoI, which could be adapted
efficiently for use in other fields and disciplines. From the point of view of the researcher, designing,
developing, and then delivering the professional development course was an opportunity for me to gain
insight and empathy for the processes the participants undertake in their own teaching contexts.
The efficacy of the intervention, based on how participants use semiotic resources in their OLEs,
is where I turn my attention in the following chapters. However, in terms of delivering an educational
experience that enabled critical thinking to take place, that was well planned, and that had an element of
community and social interaction (despite being asynchronous and utilising written language more than
any other semiotic resource), the intervention appears to have been successful based on the results of the
CoI survey administered at the end of the intervention and the content of posts and comments from
participants on the various semiotic resources that were modelled, either implicitly or explicitly, throughout.
217
Chapter 9 – Results: Post-intervention Survey of Practice
Figure 9.1 Post-intervention Research Design
Following the completion of the professional development course, a second survey of practice was
undertaken. This post-intervention survey of practice replicates the one used in the pre-intervention stage
of the study (see §5.3.1.). In this chapter, the post-intervention results are firstly reported and then compared
with the results from the pre-intervention stage. I aim to illustrate changes in the resources present in
instructors’ OLEs, how instructors talked about semiotic resources and the Community of Inquiry (CoI)
and shifts in student-participants' perceptions of presence in their OLEs, The survey of practice examines
the same courses and the most recent iterations of the OLEs examined in the pre-intervention stage of the
study. The results are presented in the following order:
• Content Analysis of OLEs – identifying the frequency with which semiotic resources are used
within each of the OLEs pre- and post-intervention.
• The CoI Survey – responses to the 34-item survey across the six classes.
• Class-by-class comparison of pre- and post-intervention results:
• Comparison of students’ perceptions of semiotic resources contributing to presences pre-
and post-intervention.
• Mean CoI scores pre- and post-intervention.
• Semi-structured interviews organised by semiotic resource and presence. The semi-
structured interviews necessarily covered slightly different ground to those held pre-
intervention. In the post-intervention stage, interviews focused on instructors’ experience of
completing the online professional development course, the semiotic resources they chose to
employ in the OLE after that and their views on how these choices may have changed the
levels of teaching, social and cognitive presence.
These results provide some answers to 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? Furthermore, by examining student-
218
participants' perceptions of how semiotic resources function in the OLEs, we can suggest how they act as
indicators of the CoI presences
9.1. Factors Influencing the Post-intervention Stage of the Study
Approximately 12 months passed between the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. By
the end of the second teaching session of 2020, instructor-participants and their students were in a very
different world from just a year earlier. The post-intervention stage found all three institutions
approximately five months into delivering subjects fully online in response to COVID19. Institutions
around the world transitioned to so-called Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) (e.g., Leider & Tigert, 2022;
Nomnian, 2022; Thomas et al., 2021; Schlesselman, 2020; Whalen, 2020; Yi & Jang, 2020). Fortunately,
instructor-participants were happy to continue in the present study. However, due to public health orders,
this also meant that instructors were often teaching online from home, or at least from campus offices.
Instructors’ experiences in the post-intervention stage are coloured by this experience. In addition, the post-
intervention stage of the study saw two new instructor-participants join the study: Ava and Zoe, taking over
respectively Class C from Tayla and Class E from Sam. Both Ava and Zoe completed the professional
development course prior to the start of the second teaching session. Tayla completed the professional
development course prior to departing.
9.2. Content Analysis Results: Comparison
The post-intervention content analysis helps to confirm the reliability of the results from the pre-
intervention stage with the same categories of semiotic resources identified in the post-intervention stages
of the study. It also addresses RQ1 in identifying what semiotic resources are exploited by instructors, and
RQ2 on whether changes in semiotic resource use can be observed and whether instructor-participants
attribute these to the intervention. For each class, in order to compare pre- and post-intervention use of
resources, a bar chart illustrates the types and frequency of semiotic resources observed in the pre- and
post-intervention stages. The content analysis of the three OLEs at Central University (CU) revealed
changes to Google Classroom in the 12 months between the beginning of the study and the post-intervention
stage. Updates to Google Classroom resulted in a higher frequency of some types of semiotic resources, as
I describe next.
9.2.1. Class A: Content Analysis
Typography was the main resource employed in Class A, observed more frequently than any other
resource in both the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. Typography encompasses font, bold
typeface, font size, underlining, italics, alignment, line spacing, lists and paragraphing. Typography choices,
specifically changes between small and medium font sizes, are much more frequent post-intervention than
they were before the intervention. One of these changes results from Google automatically attaching icons
to posts and tasks created by the instructor. This made icons much more prominent in the CU OLEs overall,
with their frequency increasing from just 23 to 226 after the intervention. Another change was related to
Google introducing a new type of post labelled “question”. Michelle, in particular, used the question post
219
weekly, to make certain tasks and students’ responses to these more prevalent Subsequently, the number of
posts created by Michelle increased from 40 in the pre-intervention stage to 45 and students’ posts increased
from 169 in the pre-intervention stage to 179 post-intervention. Unrelated to the new question posts, there
was also a change in the number of external hyperlinks, from zero at the beginning of the study to 89 in the
post-intervention stage.
Most photographs in the OLE post-intervention continued to be profile pictures of the students and
instructor. These were appended to posts automatically, but UI changes meant that these were not added to
posts outside of the “Stream” – the main section of the OLE. There were fewer photographs in the post-
intervention stage – 57, down from 113 at the beginning of the study. There were also fewer illustrations,
45 versus 61, and no charts or figures in the OLE post-intervention, as opposed to the 15 in the pre-
intervention stage. The post-intervention stage also saw a marked increase in the use of video in Class A.
There were 64 instances of synchronous videoconferencing, reflecting Central University’s move to 100%
online delivery.
9.2.2. Class B: Content Analysis
Changes in Google Classroom could also explain shifts in the frequency of various resources in
Class B’s OLE. Post-intervention, 176 icons were observed (up from 20 pre-intervention). Changes to the
UI also shaped the use of different font sizes, with a medium size predominant in this later stage of the
study. Typography remains the most frequently used semiotic resource in Class B’s OLE. As in Class A,
Michelle used more external links post-intervention: 69 links to resources outside of the OLE as opposed
to just two in the initial content analysis. As noted in reference to Class A, changes to the LMS saw Michelle
employ so-called “Question tasks” in Class B, leading to more student posts – some 183 were observed in
the post-intervention stage. However, the number of instructor posts also increased from 59 pre-intervention
to 112 post-intervention. This is a larger number of instructor posts compared to Class A, despite both
classes being the same subject and taught by the same instructor. The number of student posts in both
classes is comparable– 179 in Class A and 183 in Class B. Fewer images of all kinds were observed in the
Class B OLE post-intervention39.
39 Note though, that instructor-participant Michelle taught both Class A and Class B in the post-intervention stage of the study so
there is an element of duplication in the data presented here which may account for some of the similarities in the frequency with
which some of the semiotic resources reported in this chapter are used. The potential causes for the use of different resources by
Michelle, and the frequency at which they were observed is discussed in the next chapter (see §10.1).
220
Figure 9.2 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class A Pre- & Post-intervention)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Instructions
Other
Paragraphs
Icons
Emoji
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
Chart/figure
Videoconference
Instructor Posts
Instructor Comments/replies
Student Posts
Internal Hyperlinks
External Hyperlinks
Typography Icons & Emoji Images Video Discussion Hyperlinks
Class A Pre Class A Post
221
Figure 9.3 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class B Pre- & Post-intervention)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Instructions
Other
Paragraphs
Icons
Emoji
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
Chart/figure
Videoconference
Instructor Posts
Instructor Comments/replies
Student Posts
Internal Hyperlinks
External Hyperlinks
Typography Icons & Emoji Images Video Discussion Hyperlinks
Class B Pre Class B Post
222
Google Classroom continues to append profile pictures to posts and replies, but replies are often
collapsed, i.e., hidden below posts until clicked on – another change to the LMS as a result of updates. In
addition, a number of students in Class B did not use a profile picture in the OLE, which also contributed
to there being fewer photographs overall. This is a change from the pre-intervention stage where the
majority of students in Class A and B uploded a profile picture. The frequency of illustrations, however, is
consistent with Class A due to the same subject being taught in both classes. Forty five instances observed
in Class B. This is a considerable increase from the 0 observed in Class B at the beginning of the study.
Finally, there is an increase in the number of videoconference opportunities in the OLE. Previously, two
videoconference sessions were available to students before the mid-term and final assessments; but the
second content analysis revealed an increase to 64 instances. Like for Class A, this reflects the change to
100% online delivery of classes due to COVID19.
9.2.3. Class C: Content Analysis
As in Classes A and B, the frequency and type of semiotic resources in the Class C OLE were
influenced by changes to the LMS, Google Classroom. In addition, as noted above, Class C received a new
instructor in the second half of 2020, Zoe. There was also a change to 100% online delivery, from the
blended approach seen in the pre-intervention stage. There are observable changes in the number and type
of semiotic resources present in Zoe’s version of the Class C OLE compared to (previous instructor) Tayla’s.
Typographic semiotic resources remained the most frequently used semiotic resource in the OLE, and 121
instances of the medium-weight font size were observed in the post-intervention stage. Class C used
continued relying on mostly internal hyperlinks (n=286), directing students to other pages and resources
within the OLE/LMS, more than double the 122 internal links observed at the beginning of the study, while
external links totalled just two.
The use of icons also increased in the Class C OLE, with 283 examples observed compared to 107
previously. A total of 135 images are contained within the OLE, nominally fewer than the 148 seen in the
first content analysis. The majority are profile pictures in both analyses. Instructor posts in the OLE doubled
from 34 to 68 post-intervention, while there were three videos and just a single emoji.
223
Figure 9.4 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class C Pre- & Post-intervention)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Other
Paragraphs
Icons
Emoji
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
Chart/figure
Videoconference
Instructor Posts
Instructor Comments/replies
Student Posts
Internal
External
Typography Icons & Emoji Images Video Discussion Hyperlinks
Class C Pre Class C Post
224
9.2.4. Class D: Content Analysis
Built in Moodle, which received fewer updates compared to Google Classroom in the period
August 2019 to August 2020, Class D’s OLE underwent fewer changes from the pre- to the post-
intervention stage. Few changes can be seen in the use of typographical resources at the micro, meso or
macro levels, except for the use of bold type which decreased from 326 instances to 237 observed instances.
There was also a small decrease in the use of italics and unordered lists. Post-intervention, there was an
increase in the number of videos in the OLE. The number of videos from external sources increased from
six to 12. These are all videos created by Ben, the instructor, prompted by the change to fully online delivery.
There was also a small increase in the number of interactive videos created in H5P40. Overall, the OLE
featured more colours as well as more paragraphs, 260 versus 162, (despite the content remaining ostensibly
the same) and more photographs, 75 up from five, in the pre-intervention content analysis. Conversely, the
number of icons decreased from 338 pre-intervention to 207 post-intervention.
9.2.5. Class E: Content Analysis
Class E also received a new instructor in 2020, Ava. Like Zoe in Class C, Ava taught the same subject as
her predecessor Sam, and inherited Class E’s OLE. Both instructors also participated in the professional
development intervention. In Class E, typography was the most frequently observed semiotic resource. In
the post-intervention stage, there was a decrease in the number of instances of bold typeface, and italics
were not observed at all in the second content analysis, while instances of change to a small font size
increased to 139 instances, making it the most used font size in the OLE. This is a genuine increase in the
use of smaller font sizes and not the result of changes to the LMS. The frequency of typography using
indentations (ordered and unordered lists, paragraphs, and/or quotation) changed in the post-intervention
stage of the study: there were 33 unordered lists prior to and 17 following the intervention. Conversely,
ordered lists (numbered lists) increased from 11 to 21 instances. In addition, Ava introduced the use of
expanded folders, a folder icon followed by an indented, unordered list of documents. Icons were used more
after the intervention, going from 95 to 195 instances. The use of hyperlinks also increased, with some 184
internal links (compared with just 21 pre-intervention), although external links decreased from 16 to nine.
In the post-intervention stage, image use doubled to eight. The number of instructor posts remained steady
between both stages (16 in the pre- and 17 in the post-intervention stage).
40 H5P allows for videos to be created that contain interactive content on top of video clips. Interactions such as images, text, links,
and quizzes are overlaid on top of videos for learners to interact with.
225
Figure 9.5 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class D Pre- & Post-intervention)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Italics
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Instructions
Other
Paragraphs
Table
Icons
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
Chart/figure
External video
Native video
Interactive video
Audio
Instructor Posts
Student Posts
Internal
External
Typography Icons
&
Emoji
Images Video Discussion Hyperlinks
Class D Pre Class D Post
226
Figure 9.6 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class E Pre- & Post-intervention)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Italics
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Instructions
Other
Paragraphs
Table
Expanded folder
Icons
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
External video
Native video
Animation
Instructor Posts
Student Posts
Internal
External
Typography Icons
&
Emoji
Images Video Discussion Hyperlinks
Class E Pre Class E Post
227
Figure 9.7 Semiotic Resources Identified in OLE (Class F Pre- & Post-intervention)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Italics
Highlight
Other
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Instructions
Other
Learning outcomes
Cards/UI for activities
Reference lists
Paragraphs
Icons
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
Chart/figure
External video
Native video
Animation
Personalised video
Instructor Posts
Instructor Comments/replies
Student Posts
Internal
External
Typography Icons & Emoji Images Video Discussion Hyperlinks
Class F Pre Class F Post
228
9.2.6. Class F: Content Analysis
Typography remained the most dominant semiotic resource in Class F’s OLE. While the use of
different sizes and bold typefaces was mostly the same as in the pre-intervention stage, Chloe introduced
new typographical elements at the macro level. In addition to ordered and unordered lists, each section in
the OLE began with a list of the intended learning outcomes for that section. Ten APA 7th edition reference
lists were also added to the OLE, and there were no such lists in the pre-intervention stage. Without a
bullet/dot point or number, these were categorised as unordered litsts. Another newly observed resource in
the Class F OLE was the use of highlighted text, of which there were three instances. The most notable
change to the use of typography in the OLE was the addition of 44 “cards”41 to highlight information or to
segregate it from other information. Figure 9.8 shows one of these UI cards taken from the Class F OLE:
Figure 9.8 UI Card in Class F
An example of a UI card in the Class F Online Learning Environment. The card creates a box that surrounds content
on the page that is to be viewed together, resulting in a single sign. In this case a task on intercultural competence.
The Card UI also separates the task from “OPTIONAL: Sample activities” directly below.
41 Similar to my description of lists as either “ordered” or “unordered” based on the underlying HTML tags (<ol> and <ul>), the
term “card” comes from a class of UI elements that can be implemented in Moodle, e.g., <div class="card">...</div>. These UI
cards are described as macrotypography, as they work as an ornamentation device (Stöckl, 2005, p. 82). See also Chapter 3 –
Theoretical Framework.
229
Video content increased in this OLE too, to 60 videos created by instructor-participant Chloe, up
from six at the beginning of the study. This was accompanied by a decrease in the number of other, external
videos, from 14 to just nine. The number of personalised videos remained consistent with the number of
students enrolled in the subject. As in the pre-intervention stage, students were asked to record their own
introductory videos using VoiceThread and then comment on each other’s contribution. Icon use in the
OLE remained mostly the same (120 in this second analysis, and 135 pre-intervention), as did instructor
posts (43 and 42, post- and pre-intervention, respectively). Finally, the total number of images (36) and
hyperlinks (133) decreased, from 99 images and 218 links at the beginning of the study.
9.3 The Community of Inquiry Survey Results: Comparison
9.3.1. Demographic data
At the end of the 2020 teaching session, students in each of the instructor-participants’ classes
(n=195) were invited to undertake the CoI survey via a link posted in their OLEs. A total of 63 students
completed the survey, representing a 32.3% response rate (compared to 28.1% [n=58] of 206 students at
the beginning of the study, see §6.5.1). Again, the first section of the survey collected demographic
information on participants’ gender, age, location, first language, attendance mode, and qualifications,
which is summarised and compared to demographic data from the pre-intervention survey in Table 9.1.
The largest difference in the post-intervention stage was the mode of delivery that students
identified. At the beginning of the study, 72% of students were enrolled in face-to-face mode. In the post-
intervention stage, this percentage was zero. Other demographic data remain consistent with the first survey
in terms of age and gender distribution as well as residence, first language, and qualifications.
Table 9.1 Student-Participants Pre- and Post-intervention
Demographic Information
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
n
%
n
%
Gender
Male
7
12
8
13
Female
51
88
55
87
Age
18-24
2
3.4
3
4
25-30
16
27.6
17
27
31-35
21
36.2
17
27
36-40
11
19
15
24
41-55
8
13.8
9
14
56-60
-
-
1
2
Prefer not to say
-
-
1
2
Attendance Mode
On-campus
42
72.4
-
-
230
Demographic Information
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
n
%
n
%
Online only
16
27.6
63
100
Residence
Australia
19
32.7
19
30
Asia
38
65.6
43
68
Europe
-
-
1
2
Other
1
1.7
-
-
English Language
First language
15
25.8
16
25
Second language
43
74.2
47
75
Highest Qualification
Diploma/Associate degree
3
5.2
7
11
Undergraduate degree
38
65.5
38
60
Post-graduate degree
17
29.3
18
29
Total Respondents
58
100
63
100
Note. Other first languages: Korean, Japanese, Spanish, Hindi, Filipino, Nepalese, Urdu, Vietnamese.
9.3.2. Responses to Survey Items
Responses to the post-intervention survey were scored using the same five-point scale employed for the
pre-intervention survey, from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with “not applicable/I don’t
know” responses scored 0. The mean responses for the 34 statements ranged from 3.34 for Item 16 Online
or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction (social presence), to 4.62 for
Item 4The instructor clearly communicated important due dates and time frames for online activities (e.g.
dates for assignments) (teaching presence). Standard deviation was highest for Item 16 (S.D=1.30) and
lowest for Item 29 Combining new information helped me answer problems and questions asked in course
activities (S.D=0.61) (cognitive presence). The overall mean scores and standard deviations for teaching,
social and cognitive presence are outlined in Table 9.2 and compared to the same data gathered in the pre-
intervention stage of the study.
Table 9.2 Presences – Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D.) Pre- & Post-intervention
Presence
Pre- Mean
Pre- S.D
Post Mean
Post S.D
Teaching Presence
4.28
0.90
4.41
0.95
Social Presence
3.87
1.06
3.78
1.18
Cognitive Presence
4.38
0.81
4.39
0.82
231
9.3.3. Teaching Presence
Items 1 – 13 of the CoI survey asked respondents to consider the design and organisation, discourse
facilitation, and direct instruction in the OLE. The lowest mean score for items in the teaching presence
section of the survey was 4.15 for Item 10 The Instructor developed a sense of community among students
in this course, while the highest was Item four (noted above). Standard deviation was lowest for Item 9 The
instructor encouraged students to explore new concepts in this course (S.D=0.83) and highest for Item 13
The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion (S.D=1.04).
9.3.3.1. Design & Organisation
Items 1 – 4 in the instrument surveyed students’ perceptions of the design and organisation of their
course. Mean scores ranged from 4.43 for Item 1 The instructor clearly communicated the important course
topics and Item 2 The instructor clearly communicated important course goals to 4.62 for Item 4 The
instructor clearly communicated important due dates and time frames for online activities (e.g., dates for
assignments) (teaching presence). Standard deviation was highest for Item 3 The instructor provided clear
instructions on how to participate in online activities (e.g., where and how to submit assignments)
(S.D=1.00) and lowest for Item 1 (S.D=0.87). Similar to the pre-intervention survey, there was a high level
of agreement among students towards how instructors communicated information about course topics,
goals, important dates, and how they were expected to participate in the OLE. Some 93% of the 63
responses indicated that they either somewhat or strongly agreed with Item 2. The greatest number of
responses indicating some or strong disagreement was for Item 3 at approximately 8%, compared to the
pre-intervention stage where responses disagreeing with Items 1-4 were approximately 5%. Neutral
responses were fewer in the post-intervention stage. However, Item 4 received four “I don’t know”
responses – 6.3% – higher than any other item in the ‘design and organisation’ section of the survey.
232
Figure 9.9 Design & Organisation (Teaching Presence) – All Students (Pre-intervention/Stage 1 and
Post-intervention/Stage 3)
9.3.3.2. Discourse Facilitation
Items 5 – 10 of the survey asked students to reflect on their instructors’ ability to facilitate discourse
in the OLE. Mean scores in the post-intervention stage ranged from 4.15 for Item 10 to 4.39 for Item 9.
Item 8 had the highest standard deviation in responses (S.D=1.03), while Item 6 the lowest (S.D=0.85).
The responses to Items 5 – 10 are illustrated presented in Figure 9.10 alongside the responses to those items
in the pre-intervention stage.
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
18
16
18
17
15
7
14
6
36
42
36
42
36
50
39
48
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
1. The instructor clearly communicated the
important course topics.
2. The instructor clearly communicated
important course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear instructions on
how to participate in online activities (e.g.
where and how to submit assignments).
4. The instructor clearly communicated
important due dates and time frames for online
activities (e.g. dates for assignments).
Design & Organisation
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neith er agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
233
Figure 9.10 Discourse Facilitation (Teaching Presence) – All Students (Pre-intervention/Stage 1 and
Post-intervention/Stage 3)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
4
1
2
2
8
2
3
1
3
3
5
1
5
7
8
9
27
22
29
24
32
17
29
18
26
17
25
18
20
33
23
34
19
36
21
33
23
33
20
28
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
1
5
2
3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
5. The instructor helped me to understand
where there are agreements and
disagreements in the theory in this course.
6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the
class towards understanding course topics
in a way that helped me think about them
clearly.
7. The instructor helped to keep course
participants engaged and participating in
productive dialogue (e.g. in
forums/Q&A posts or comments).
8. The instructor helped keep students on
task in a way that helped me to learn.
9. The instructor encouraged students to
explore new concepts in this course.
10. The Instructor developed a sense of
community among students in this course.
Discourse facilitation
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
234
Again, there was a high level of agreement among students across the six items in this section,
consistent with the results observed pre-intervention. Item 6 received the highest number of positive
responses, with 92% of the 62 respondents (compared to 89% pre-intervention) indicating that they either
somewhat or strongly agreed that a sense of community was developed in the OLE. Item 8 received the
greatest number of negative responses, with 9.5% of students somewhat or strongly disagreeing that the
instructor was able to keep students “on track” in a way that aided learning. In comparison, just over 3% of
students felt the same way in the first survey. The section on discourse facilitation also elicited a higher
number of neutral responses here compared to the first survey. Approximately 14% of students responded
that they neither agreed nor disagreed with Item 10, which was almost equal to the 13.9% of neutral
responses to this item in the pre-intervention survey. Item 8 and Item 9 received a larger number of “I don’t
know” responses in the post-intervention stage (8%) than in the pre-intervention stage (2 %).
9.3.3.3. Direct instruction
Direct instruction in the OLE was measured by Items 11, 12 and 13 in the CoI survey. In this
section, mean scores ranged from 4.32 for Item 12 The instructor provided feedback that helped me
understand my strengths and weaknesses and this was connected to the course’s goals and objectives to
4.40 for Item 13 The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion. The highest standard deviation is
also observed for Item 13 (S.D=1.04) and the lowest for Item 11 The instructor helped to focus discussion
(e.g., in forums) on important topics in a way that helped me to learn.
Regarding direct instruction, the level of agreement among students was high but comparable to
that observed in the responses in the pre-intervention stage. Responses somewhat or strongly agreeing with
Item 11 made up 82.5% of the 63 responses in the post-intervention stage compared to 89.6% of 58
responses pre-intervention stage. Item 11received considerably more neutral responses than other items.
Item 12 elicited similar results in both stages of the study, although there was a higher number of “I don’t
know” responses (4) in the post-intervention stage. A similar trend in agreement to Items 12 and 13 can be
seen in pre- and post-intervention responses but again, there was an increased number of “I don’t know”
responses – 6% post-intervention, up from 1.7% in the pre-intervention stage. The number of students that
responded “I don’t know” also increased in this section of the survey, with Items 12 and 13 making up 6%
of the responses, which is higher compared to the beginning of the study where “I don’t know” responses
made up 3.4% and 1.7%, respectively. These results, compared with those gathered from the beginning of
the study, are illustrated in Figure 9.11.
235
Figure 9.11 Direct Instruction (Teaching Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)
9.3.4. Social Presence
Items 14 – 22 of the CoI survey asked respondents to think about their experience in the OLE and
how they perceived their instructor in terms of affective and open communication, and group cohesion. The
lowest mean score for items in the social presence section of the survey was 3.34 for Item 16 Online or
web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction, while the highest was 4.01 for
Item 21 I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other students. Standard deviation was lowest for
Item 21 (S.D=1.00) and highest for Item 16 (S.D=1.31).
9.3.4.1. Affective Communication
The highest mean score of items related to affective communication was 3.96 for Item 14 Getting
to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course and lowest, 3.34, for Item 16.
Standard deviation was lowest for Item 14 Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of
belonging in the course. (S.D=1.16) and highest for Item 16 (S.D=1.31). Student responses to Item 14 and
Item 15 I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants remained broadly in agreement
and were similar to those recorded in the pre-intervention survey. Regarding establishing a sense of
belonging, 71% of responses indicate that students somewhat or strongly agreed. However, whereas Stage
1 recorded 17% neutral responses to Item 14, in the post-intervention stage these were down to
approximately 8% and a further 15.8% of responses indicated some or strong disagreement.
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
7
2
3
4
4
27
20
23
20
23
10
25
32
27
32
26
40
1
2
2
4
1
4
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
11. The instructor helped to focus
discussion (e.g. in forums) on
important topics in a way that helped
me to learn.
12. The instructor provided feedback
that helped me understand my
strengths and weaknesses and this
was connected to the course’s goals
and objectives.
13. The instructor provided feedback
in a timely fashion.
Direct Instruction
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
236
The same pattern occurred with Item 15: two thirds of responses indicated some or strong
agreement to being able to form an impression of their peers online, but where there was a neutral response
rate of approximately 19% in the first survey, this dropped to approximately 6% in the post-intervention,
while the number of ‘somewhat disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ responses increased to 22%. Finally, Item
16 elicited the more diverse responses than Items 14 and 15: only 49% of responses indicated some or
strong agreement with Item 16, down from 75.8% in the Stage 1 survey. One third of respondents to the
post-intervention survey somewhat or strongly disagreed that online or web-based communication is ideal
for social interaction, up from 12% pre-intervention. Neutral responses were down to 10% from the 15%
in the pre-intervention stage.
Figure 9.12 Affective Communication (Social Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)
1
2
2
4
2
4
1
8
2
10
5
17
10
5
11
4
6
10
18
20
18
26
18
15
27
25
24
16
26
16
1
3
1
3
1
1
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense
of belonging in the course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course
participants.
16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent
medium for social interaction.
Affective Communication
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
237
9.3.4.2. Open Communication
Survey Items 17 – 19 relate to student perceptions of open communication in the OLE. Item 19 I
felt comfortable interacting with other students in the course (e.g., responding to their posts or asking
questions) had the lowest mean score of 3.78. Item 17 Overall, I felt comfortable communicating online
recorded the highest mean score of 3.85. It also had the highest standard deviation (S.D=3.85), while Item
19 had the lowest (S.D=3.78).
Compared to the section on affective communication, the section on open communication attracted
broad agreement. However, responses indicating some and strong agreement with Items 17 and 18 were
slightly lower in the post-intervention than in the pre-intervention stage, 69.8% versus 77.5% and 68.2%
versus 72.4%, respectively. Conversely, the number of neutral responses to Items 18 and 19 decreased and
‘strongly disagree’ responses increased, 6.4% for Item 17, 4.8% for Item 18 and 3.2% for Item 19.
Figure 9.13 Open Communication (Social Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)
4
3
1
2
5
6
4
6
6
10
6
8
11
10
14
8
22
21
21
22
20
20
23
23
21
21
17
21
2
1
1
1
2
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
17. Overall, I felt comfortable communicating online.
18. I felt comfortable participating in the course
discussions (e.g. discussing content and theory in
forums).
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other students in
the course (e.g. responding to their posts or asking
questions).
Open Communication
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
238
9.3.4.3. Group Cohesion
The third part of the survey dedicated to measuring social presence encompasses Items 20 – 22,
which considers students’ perceptions of group cohesion between themselves and their peers within the
OLE. Item 21 I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other students had the highest mean score
of 4.0, while Item 20 I felt comfortable disagreeing with other students while still being professional and
maintaining a sense of trust had the lowest at 3.64. Standard deviation was highest for Item 20 (S.D=1.14)
and lowest for Item 21 (S.D=1.0).
Responses showed an increased number of students somewhat or strongly agreeing with items in
this section. Agreement with Item 20 increased from 41.3% to 55.5% post-intervention. Item 21 saw an
increase to 73% agreement, up from 51.7%. Item 22 Online discussions help me to develop a sense of
collaboration also saw an increase in agreement from 23.4% pre-intervention to 66.6% post-intervention.
Consistent with this, both disagreement and neutral responses decreased for Items 20- 22, while “I don’t
know” responses remained similar across the three items.
Figure 9.14 Group Cohesion (Social Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)
1
2
2
1
1
1
16
9
8
5
6
9
14
13
16
9
19
9
13
19
17
23
16
18
11
16
13
23
15
24
3
4
2
2
1
2
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other
students while still being professional and
maintaining a sense of trust.
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged
by other students.
22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense
of collaboration.
Group Cohesion
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
239
9.3.5. Cognitive Presence
Items 23 – 34 of the CoI survey asked respondents to think about their experience in the OLE and
how they perceived their instructor in terms of the establishment of the phases of the Practical Inquiry
Model, i.e., the Triggering event, Exploration, Integration and Resolution, which also form the
subcategories of cognitive presence. The lowest mean score for items in the cognitive presence section of
the survey was 4.24 for Item 28 Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different points
of view, while the highest was 4.59 for Item 29 Combining new information helped me answer problems
and questions asked in course activities. Standard deviation was lowest for Item 29 (S.D=0.62) and highest
for Item 28 (S.D=0.92).
9.3.5.1. Triggering & Exploration
Item 25 I felt motivated to explore content related to the course had the highest mean score of 4.40,
while Item 28 had the lowest mean score of 4.24. The highest standard deviation was for Item 28 (S.D=0.94)
and lowest for Item 23 Problems and questions posed in the subject increased my interest issues in TESOL
(S.D=0.68). The number of responses that indicated some or strong agreement with Items 23 – 28 increased
post-intervention. The largest increase was observed for Item 28. Two thirds, or 65.5% of students,
indicated agreement in the first survey, while 79.3% indicated agreement post-intervention. In addition,
Item 24 Subject activities made me curious about theory etc. elicited agreement among some 92% of
respondents. The number of neutral responses to Item 28 fell from 22.4% to just 9.5% post-intervention.
The number of “I don’t know” responses represented between 3 – 6% for item 28. “I don’t know” responses
increased overall for the Triggering and Exploration items (from about 1.7% in the first survey to 3.1% in
this second). The exception was Item 28, where ‘I don’t know’ responses decreased from 68% to 4.7%.
The number of responses either somewhat or strongly disagreeing with each of the items in this section also
remained relatively consistent between surveys. Responses to Items 23 – 28 in the pre-intervention and
post-intervention surveys are illustrated in Figure 9.15.
9.3.5.2. Integration & Resolution
The final section in the CoI survey concerns the Integration and Resolution subcategories of
cognitive presence in the PIM. In this section, Item 29 had the highest mean score of 4.59, while Item 33
The answers and solutions to course tasks and activities I have found can be applied in my own [future]
English classroom had the lowest at 4.32. The highest standard deviation was for Item 31 Reflection on
course content and discussions helped me understand the most important concepts in this class and the
lowest for Item 29.
This section saw a strong level of agreement: approximately 80% of responses indicated some or
strong agreement with Items 29 – 34. Only Item 32 I can describe ways to apply the knowledge created in
this course (e.g. how this knowledge could be used in my own [future] English classroom) and Item 34 I
can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or non-class related activities saw less
agreement in the post-intervention stage of the study (this may be expected given self-confidence among
240
students, and instructors, might have been severely impacted at the end of 2020). However, Item 34 did see
an increase in the number of neutral responses, and Item 33 received a similar number of ‘strongly agree’
and ‘somewhat agree’ responses in both the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. “I don’t know”
responses increased to 4.7% for Item 34. Finally, the number of responses that indicated some or strong
disagreement with Items 29 - 34 remained relatively low post-intervention, notwithstanding small increases
in disagreement for Items 32 and 33. In the pre-intervention survey, 1.7% of respondents strongly disagreed
with these items. In the post-intervention survey, this changed to 6.3% of respondents somewhat
disagreeing.
Figure 9.15 Triggering & Exploration (Cognitive Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
3
4
1
4
3
3
5
4
1
2
4
4
8
5
5
3
13
6
14
28
23
30
14
21
13
20
18
19
11
20
37
28
29
28
37
34
33
32
32
35
27
30
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
4
3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
23. Problems and questions
posed in the subject increased my
interest issues in TESOL.
24. Subject activities made me
curious about theory etc.
25. I felt motivated to explore
content related to the course.
26. I used a variety of information
sources to explore problems and
answer questions posed in this
course.
27. Brainstorming and finding
relevant information helped me
solve content-related questions
and problems.
28. Online discussions were
valuable in helping me appreciate
different points of view.
Triggering Event & Exploration
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
241
Figure 9.16 Integration & Resolution (Cognitive Presence) – All Students (Pre- Post-intervention)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
5
4
3
2
3
4
4
5
5
3
3
6
18
28
21
30
24
21
28
20
22
19
26
20
32
28
32
28
29
34
25
32
30
35
25
30
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 3
29. Combining new information helped me
answer problems and questions asked in
course activities.
30. Learning activities helped me explain
ideas and create solutions.
31. Reflection on course content and
discussions helped me understand the
most important concepts in this class.
32. I can describe ways to apply the
knowledge created in this course (e.g. how
this knowledge could be used in my own
[future] English classroom).
33. The answers and solutions to course
tasks and activities I have found can be
applied in my own [future] English
classroom.
34. I can apply the knowledge created in
this course to my work or non-class related
activities.
Integration & Resolution
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know
242
9.4 Descriptive Statistics
To understand whether the differences between the results of the CoI survey administered before
and after the intervention are statistically significant, a t-test for two independent samples (hypothesis test)
was performed. The output of the t-test is shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.3 t-Test for Two Independent Samples
Observation
Value
Difference
0.583
t (Observed value)
0.511
|t| (Critical value)
1.966
DF
406
p-value (Two-tailed)
0.610
alpha
0.05
95% confidence interval on the difference between the means: [ -1.662, 2.828]
Overall, the computed p-value 0.610 is greater than the alpha, thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected,
that is, that there are no statistically significant differences between the results of the CoI survey
administered before the intervention and the survey administered after the intervention. Figure 9.15
illustrates the results of the t-Test.
Figure 9.17 t-Test for Two Independent Samples (Pre- & Post-intervention) / Two-tailed Test
a/2=0.025
t(crit)=1.966
a/2=0.025
-t(crit)=-1.97
t(obs)=0.511
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 012345
Density
t
243
9.5. Classes A – F Results: Comparison
In this section I present the post-intervention CoI Survey mean scores for Classes A – F compared
to those at the beginning of the study. Coupled with the themes identified from the second round of semi-
structured interviews, this section shows where potential changes have taken place in the instructor-
participants’ thinking and practice in building a CoI in their OLE. In addition, students’ perceptions of
which semiotic resources they believe help to establish presences are compared with the beginning of the
study.
As with the results gathered from the first survey of practice (see Chapter 6 – Pre-intervention
Results) the mean scores for teaching, social and cognitive presence are used to create a radar chart for each
class. A second radar chart plots the mean responses to questions about each of the presence subcategories.
Values closer to the outside of the chart indicate a higher mean score. The radar charts thus allow us to see
where shifts in presences occur, while the reasons for and potential influences causing these shifts are
expanded upon, at least in part, by instructors’ answers in interviews. Table 9.3 presents the number of
respondents in each stage of the study:
Table 9.4 Respondents Per Class Pre-intervention (N1) & Post-intervention (N2)
N1
N2
Class A
16
13
Class B
10
15
Class C
6
7
Class D
7
11
Class E
9
10
Class F
10
7
In this section, the number of times students indicated a particular resource represents a combined
number. For example, “video” encompasses internal (instructor created) video, external (embedded) video,
opportunities for videoconferencing, and the personalisation of video (such as the use of VoiceThread in
Class F). Likewise, “Typography” collects the considerable number of typographic semiotic resources into
one category for ease of reading.
9.5.1. Class A & B – Michelle (Central University)
9.5.1.1. Class A: Community of Inquiry Survey
Class A saw a positive shift in the mean responses to items relating to teaching presence between
pre- and post-intervention stages of the study, with the mean score rising from 4.33 to 4.40. The mean score
for items relating to social presence decreased from 4.06 to 3.85 in the post-intervention stage. For survey
items relating to cognitive presence, the mean score decreased from 4.29 to 4.18. The lowest standard
deviation was for responses to Item 4 (S.D=0.0) and highest for Item 16 (S.D=1.24), consistent with the
244
overall results. Figures 9.16 and 9.17 and Table 9.4 illustrate these shifts in mean scores for the three
presences and their subcategories.
Figure 9.18a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class A Pre- & Post-intervention
Figure 9.18b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class A Pre- & Post-intervention
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
Teaching presence
Social presenceCognitive presence
Stage 1 Stage 3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Communication
Open Communication
Group Cohesion
Trigger/Exploration
Integration & Resolution
Stage 1 Stage 3
245
Table 9.5 Community of Inquiry – Class A (Pre- & Post-intervention)
Presence
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Presence Subcategories
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Teaching
4.33
4.40
Design & Organisation
4.48
4.74
Discourse Facilitation
4.21
4.21
Direct Instruction
4.39
4.28
Social
4.06
3.85
Affective Communication
4.29
3.94
Open Communication
4.11
3.83
Group Cohesion
3.77
3.80
Cognitive
4.29
4.18
Trigger & Exploration
4.28
4.21
Integration & Resolution
4.30
4.15
9.5.1.2. Class A: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences
In addition to the 34 items in the CoI survey, students were also asked to identify from a list the
semiotic resources that they perceived as contributing the most to establishing each of the presences in their
OLE. For teaching presence, Students in Class A believed that video (40), encompassing internal and
external video, videoconference opportunities and personalised video UI design (32), and images (27),
photographs, illustrations, charts, and figures, were the three semiotic resources that most contributed to
teaching presence in the OLE. Written instructions (24) were the fourth most identified resource in both
cases.
Post-intervention, video (29), images (21) and discussion opportunities (20) were identified by
students as contributing to social presence. In particular, the number of times video was identified saw just
over a threefold increase from nine responses in the pre-intervention stage. There was also a noticeable
decrease in the number of student responses that identified UI design as contributing to social presence. In
the pre-intervention stage, UI was identified as the number one semiotic resource contributing to social
presence, with 30 responses. In the post-intervention stage, this fell to 16 responses.
Video was perceived by students as contributing the most to cognitive presence, with 32 responses
in the post-intervention survey. At the same time, UI design and images, which were the most identified
contributors to cognitive presence in the pre-intervention survey with 37 responses each, fell to 18 and 19
responses, respectively, post-intervention. In the post-intervention stage, written instructions were
identified fewer times. Figure 9.19 describes the full range of responses by students in the pre- and post-
intervention surveys. Despite the difference in student numbers between stages (n1=16, n2=13), the trends
represented in Figure 9.19 are noticable. For example we see images replaced by video as the number one
perceived contributor to teaching presence, but UI is consistently second in both stages. Images and video
swap places again when it comes to perceptions of semiotiuc resources contibuting to social presence.
Finally, Figure 9.18 shows the same trend of cognitive presence, video is perceived as contributing more
in the post-intervention stage while UI remains second.
246
Figure 9.19 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class A Pre- & Post-
intervention
9.5.1.3. Class B: Community of Inquiry Survey
Class B saw positive shifts in the mean scores for all three presences. The mean score for items
relating to teaching presence was 4.39, up from 3.80. For social presence, the mean score was 3.99 versus
3.66 pre-intervention. For items related to cognitive presence, the mean score rose from 4.09 to 4.23. The
lowest standard deviation was for Item 23 (S.D=0.57) and highest for Item 14 (S.D=1.32). Figures 9.19 and
9.20 and Table 9.6 illustrate these shifts in mean scores for both the three presences and their subcategories.
Table 9.6 Community of Inquiry – Class B (Pre- & Post-intervention)
Presence
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Presence Subcategories
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Teaching
3.80
4.39
Design & Organisation
3.91
4.56
Discourse Facilitation
3.79
4.35
Direct Instruction
3.77
4.30
Social
3.66
3.99
Affective Communication
3.81
4.04
Open Communication
3.51
4.02
Group Cohesion
3.66
4.02
Cognitive
4.09
4.23
Trigger & Exploration
3.88
4.20
Integration & Resolution
4.29
4.37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3
Teaching Presence Social Presence Cognitive Presence
Images Video Typography Icons & Emoji Discussion Wr itten instructions UI D esign Au dio Other I don't know
247
Figure 9.20a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class B Pre- & Post-intervention
Figure 9.20b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class B Pre- & Post-intervention
9.5.1.4. Class B: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences
The post-intervention survey saw an overall increase in the number of times each semiotic resource
was identified as contributing to each of the presences. Figure 9.21 shows Class B students perceived the
different manifestations of video (internal and external, videoconference opportunities and personalised
video) to be important for establishing teaching presence at a much higher frequency (61 responses) than
their peers in the pre-intervention stage of the study (19 responses). Here, UI design was the second most
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
Teaching presence
Social presenceCognitive presence
Stage 1 Stage 3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective Communication
Open Communication
Group Cohesion
Trigger/Exploration
Integration & Resolution
Stage 1 Stage 3
248
cited resource, with 53 responses, and images garnered 51 responses. Discussion overtook written
instructions as contributing to teaching presence in the post-intervention stage. The same trend was repeated
with both social presence and cognitive presence. In the post-intervention stage, images were identified as
being the resource contributing the most to social and cognitive presence (both 46 responses). Discussion
was the second most cited resource in relation to social presence (32 responses) in the post-intervention
stage, while students identified images as the second most important with respect to cognitive presence (39
responses). Discussion was identified 31 times as contributing to social presence, as was UI design for
contributing to cognitive presence.
Figure 9.21 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class B Pre- & Post-
intervention
9.5.1.5. Class A & B: Semi-Structured Interviews
Instructor-participant Michelle taught both Class A and Class B. Therefore, her remarks
from the semi-structured interview conducted at the end of the second teaching session in 2020 are
consolidated here.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3
Teaching Presence Social Presence Cognitive Presence
Images Video Typography Icons & Emoji Discussion Wr itten instructions UI D esign Au dio Other I don't know
249
Table 9.7 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Michelle – Class A & B)
Interview
topic
Instructor
Notes
Video
“...[I] used recordings of parent-teacher conferences
in my lesson about ‘communicating with parents’.
Video has lots of affordances, like being able to
rewind and watch again which is useful for non-
native [English] speaking teachers who tend to
concentrate on their own language use, and
classroom language more...”
Michelle confirmed her belief, like other
instructors, that using video in the OLE
provided students with authentic examples
of the concepts discussed in the course,
“bring[ing] the classroom to the students”,
regardless of where they were.
After completing the professional
development course, however, Michelle
noted that videos made by (and featuring)
the instructor were valuable, and they
needed to be in the order of 40 seconds to
one minute in length if they were to help
engage students.
Typography
Michelle also spoke of the use of colour-coding text in the OLE and in synchronous
videoconferencing to indicate where different groups of students should contribute answers in a
collaborative document, for example.
UI design
“...coming into Google Classroom may be new, but
because students have Gmail, or an Android phone,
they are able to jump in really quickly, so much so,
we reinforce this later in the semester when we teach
a class that encourages students to use Google
Classroom in their own (or future) teaching”.
While Michelle notes that Google
Classroom doesn’t allow much instructor
customisation, Google’s design paradigm
was already familiar to many students and
by extension, many instructors as well.
Images
“...there is an opportunity, I think, in my subject, to
teach students more about how they approach
images, say, in their worksheets, look at them more
critically, as well as improving their understanding
of [issues like] copyright”.
Here, Michelle noted that, after thinking
about her own use of images in the OLE
(as a result of the professional
development course), there is scope to
teach students about image use in terms of
copyright, text-image relationships, and
their metacognitive/strategy value in
building L2 literacy.
Icons and
hyperlinks
Class B, which had a large synchronous component, relied on hyperlinks posted in the OLE each
week directing students to join the videoconference and to “find” their assigned breakout room.
Michelle noted that this practice was fundamental to how the subject was designed/managed.
Teaching
presence
“Teaching presence is the design and organisation of
everything we do before going into the classroom
[and] the scaffolding techniques we use in the
classroom [...] It's just as TESOL trainers there is an
added level that makes it real intense, we often have
to call back to or make explicit the design, the
organisation, and the scaffolding, and check that
students understand what’s going on behind the
scenes...”
Instructors’ discussion of the CoI
Framework in the post-intervention stage
of the study was informed by their
participation in the professional
development course (the intervention). In
this example, Michelle defined teaching
presence, adapting it to be specific to her
field –TESOL teacher education.
Design &
Organisation
“[F]inding localised video content that more
accurately reflects our students' context is difficult.
All of the examples I can find are American teachers
or teachers from the UK teaching in classrooms full
of European students. Our students won’t ever
experience a classroom like that”.
While Michelle was enthusiastic about the
affordances of video in the OLE, she also
noted that she encountered difficulties
with finding appropriate local video
content that more accurately reflects
students’ teaching (or future teaching)
contexts.
250
Interview
topic
Instructor
Notes
Discourse
Facilitation
"Everything has to be much slower or deliberate
online because of how the screen in front of me and
the screen in front of the students acts like a filter.
Having pre-defined sets of classroom interactions
mapped out beforehand is useful as is calling on
people by name can be useful but can also feel a bit
fake. Overtime, it gets a bit smoother".
Discourse facilitation was an explicit
instructional strategy at Central
University. Instructors used dialogic
strategies like avoiding interaction-
response-feedback (IRF) interactions,
asking open ended questions to check
comprehension, using pair and small
group discussion, explicitly checking
understanding, and guiding and focusing
questions. All these were to the benefit of
having students produce language and to
model these strategies so that students
were equipped to use them in their own
teaching (or future teaching) contexts.
Michelle described discourse facilitation
as being one of the areas of her practice
that continued to be challenging when
performed online.
Triggering
event &
Exploration
“[I]n face-to-face, and synchronous online lessons,
the lead-in or the introduction of every lesson
contains a moment (or at least it should contain a
moment) when we get the students’ attention.
Hopefully. Something that sets context and activates
schemata on the topic of today’s lesson. Something
maybe that’s i+1 42 if we really want to get the
students going”.
The PIM is cognate with communicative
approaches to language teaching.
Michelle, and the other instructor-
participants, immediately recognised the
triggering event from their own practice.
However, it was not clear to Michelle how
this could be accomplished in a "self-
paced" course without a teacher eliciting
background knowledge from students.
Professional
development
course (The
intervention)
"…[S]even out of 10"
This is the score Michelle gave herself for
being able to successfully use the
strategies she was exposed to via the
intervention. Michelle identified open
communication as an area she was trying
to improve. Specifically, Michelle noted
her aim to make breakout rooms in
videoconferences a safe space where
students can share and discuss ideas.
9.5.2. Class C – Ava (Central University)
9.5.2.1. Class C: Community of Inquiry Survey
Class C registered a positive shift in the mean scores for survey items relating to teaching presence,
from a mean score of 4.58 pre-intervention to 4.68 post-intervention. The mean score for items relating to
social presence decreased from 4.31 to 3.98. For cognitive presence, the mean score was 4.62. The lowest
standard deviation occurred for Items 1 and 2 (S.D=0.34). The highest standard deviation was for Item 20
42 Michelle’s reference to “i+1” refers to Krashen’s (2003) Input Hypothesis where i indicates students’ prior linguistic competence
and knowledge of a language and +1 refers to the next level or new linguistic knowledge that is attainable for the student. Ideally,
the semiotic resources employed to create this input will also contain so-called extra-linguistic knowledge about the world, the
situation the target language might be used in, and context. This comprehensible input, as Krashen describes it, provides a sense
of puzzlement to students, but also poses a problem that students will hopefully recognise. These, in turn, are consistent with the
indicators of the triggering event described by Garrison (2017, p. 66).
251
(S.D=1.49). Figures 9.22 and 9.23 and Table 9.6 below show the shift in mean scores between the pre- and
post-intervention stages of the study.
Table 9.8 Community of Inquiry – Class C (Pre- & Post-intervention)
Presence
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Presence Subcategories
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Teaching
4.58
4.68
Design & Organisation
4.75
4.85
Discourse Facilitation
4.61
4.62
Direct Instruction
4.33
4.55
Social
4.31
3.98
Affective Communication
4.66
3.88
Open Communication
4.44
4.04
Group Cohesion
3.83
4.00
Cognitive
4.63
4.62
Trigger & Exploration
4.68
4.47
Integration & Resolution
4.58
4.77
Figure 9.22a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class C Pre- & Post-intervention
Figure 9.22b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class C Pre- & Post-intervention
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
Teaching presence
Social presenceCognitive presence
Stage 1
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.7
5
Design & Organisation
Discourse facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective
communication
Open communication
Group cohesion
Trigger & Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
Stage 1 Stage 3
252
9.5.2.2. Class C: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences
Class C exhibits a similar pattern to Class B in respect to the semiotic resources students perceived
as contributing to teaching presence. However, the resource most cited as contributing to teaching presence
in the post-intervention stage was UI/design (33) followed by images (27) and video (24). Regarding social
presence, discussion was identified 20 times, followed by images (18), UI design (16) and video (14). Of
these, only UI received fewer responses in the post-intervention stage. Both stages were similar in resources
identified as contributing to cognitive presence. Images, too, were not perceived as contributing as much
to cognitive presence post-intervention (15 responses) as they were pre-intervention (20 responses). An
increase in the number of students identifying video as a contributor to cognitive presence is observed. In
Stage 1 it was identified 13 times, and 15 times in Stage 3. Finally, students consistently identified audio
as contributing to each of the presences across both Stage 1 and Stage 3. These results are shown in Figure
9.24.
Figure 9.23 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class C Pre- & Post-
intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3
Teaching Presence Social Presence Cognitive Presence
Images Video Typography Icons & Emoji Discussion Written instructions UI D esign Audio Other I don't know
253
9.5.2.3 Class C: Semi-Structured Interviews
Table 9.9 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Ava – Class C)
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Video
"...allow[ing] students to refer back to the video,
especially if they are pre-service teachers" or perhaps
get something of a confidence boost ‘Am I doing it
right, just like in the video?’"
Ava (Class C) used short videos to
demonstrate teaching methods. This
provided students with an opportunity to see
a model or explanation of a method again,
outside of scheduled synchronous
instruction. These were either videos found
on the internet (e.g., YouTube) or, ideally,
ones she made herself.
“The most challenging aspect of our
videoconferencing43 is checking [sic] student
understanding using the classroom interactions when
students don't have their camera turned on”.
Ava stated that there could be some sort of
protocol or rule about students having their
cameras on but that enforcing it would
create an inauthentic experience, one where
students were possibly too conscious of
being on camera to engage in other aspects
of the lesson. Ava reported some success in
nominating students by name to answer
instruction checking questions44 to replicate
the kind of teaching discourse that might be
used in a face-to-face classroom.
Furthermore, Ava’s reasoning for using
videoconferencing was similar to Michelle’s
– students want instructors to attend to their
language use – especially classroom
discourse.
Typography
“…there is also an element of written language stuff in
an online session. We use slides as a [digital]
whiteboard. I’ll elicit vocab from students and put it up
as a list. Size and headings and the colour are also
important when you are trying to organise information
for consumption on a screen”.
Ava additionally noted that the largest
“chunks” of text in the Class C OLE usually
involved providing students with a
numbered list of instructions for a task on a
slide/in a digital whiteboard space in a
synchronous videoconference. However,
Ava also spoke about typography in a
synchronous videoconference, noting that
highlighting, the use of unordered lists, and
boxes were used to emphasise target
language, vocabulary, or key concepts.
Triggering
event &
Exploration
"If we give students a video, maybe a poem, or a
poster, we are engaging them but how do we also make
it comprehensible? In-class we can make a guess
based on what we know about our students already
and change it if we need to, and in a live
[synchronous] class we might be able to do something
similar [...] but how do you gauge that in an
asynchronous class? What if it is a really big class and
you never actually meet the students?"
Like Michelle, Ava was not sure if cognitive
presence could be established in an
asynchronous course, given the lack of an
instructor.
Integration &
Resolution
As with Exploration, instructors noted similarities between the Integration stage of the PIM and
opportunities for freer production of target language in a language lesson. According to Ava,
Integration (like production) asks learners to draw on what they already know and combine it with new
information they have found.
Professional
development
course (The
intervention)
"[Social presence is] getting to know your students. It’s
a really important part of building a communicative
classroom".
Ava provided a definition of social presence
relative to her context.
43 Ava noted that synchronous videoconferencing posed even more challenges in that a lot of the methods employed in the
classroom involved the use of non-linguistic cues. Facial expressions could do some of the work, but the framing of a webcam
meant that gesture was difficult to show authentically in a videoconferencing context. Likewise, position in the classroom was also
something that couldn't be expressed or demonstrated authentically either.
44 The use of so-called Instruction Checking Questions (ICQs) is a common classroom management technique in English language
lessons. In a teacher education in TESOL context, many instructors both implicitly and explicitly model ICQs to pre- and in-service
instructors. Furthermore, trainees are encouraged to plan their use of ICQs and include examples of these in written lesson plans.
254
9.5.3. Class D – Ben (Southern University)
9.5.3.1. Class D: Community of Inquiry Survey
In Class D, the mean score for survey items relating to cognitive presence saw a positive shift from
4.21 to 4.41 in the post-intervention stage. The mean score for social presence items decreased slightly
from 3.85 to 3.82, while the mean score for items relating to teaching presence decreased more noticeably
from 4.42 to 4.31. The lowest standard deviation was observed for Item 9 (S.D=0.40) and the highest for
Item 3 (S.D=1.47). Figures 8.25 and 8.26 and Table 8.7 illustrate these shifts in mean scores for the three
presences and the subcategories.
Table 9.10 Community of Inquiry – Class D (Pre- & Post-intervention)
Presence
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Presence Subcategories
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Teaching
4.42
4.31
Design & Organisation
4.84
4.17
Discourse Facilitation
4.20
4.38
Direct Instruction
4.27
4.37
Social
3.85
3.82
Affective Communication
4.00
3.90
Open Communication
4.11
3.66
Group Cohesion
3.44
3.90
Cognitive
4.21
4.41
Trigger & Exploration
4.25
4.27
Integration & Resolution
4.16
4.56
Figure 9.24a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Teaching presence
Social presenceCognitive presence
Stage 1 Stage 3
255
Figure 9.24b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention
9.5.3.2. Class D: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences
Figure 9.25 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class D Pre- & Post-
intervention
3
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
Design & Organisation
Discourse facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective
communication
Open communication
Group cohesion
Trigger & Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
Stage 1 Stage 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3
Teaching Presence Social Presence Cognitive Presence
Images Video Typography Icons & Emoji Discussion Written instructions UI Design Audio Other I don't know
256
Class D students perceived the following resources as contributing most to teaching presence: video with
56 responses followed by UI design (37), discussion (26) and written instructions (26). This contrasted with
the pre-intervention stage, when, as shown in Figure 9.27, UI design was most frequently identified as
contributing to teaching presence, followed by video and written instructions. In both Stage 1 and Stage 3,
video was the resource students cited most frequently as contributing to social presence (22 responses in
Stage 1 and 35 in Stage 3), followed by discussion (13 responses in Stage 1 and 23 in Stage 3) and written
instructions (10 and 21). Finally, students considered video as contributing the most to cognitive presence
too, with 31 responses. By contrast, in the pre-intervention survey UI design (19) was perceived as
contributing to cognitive presence the most. In the post-intervention stage, UI design (18) came in second,
then written instructions (17) and discussion (16 responses).
9.5.3.3. Class D: Semi-Structured Interviews
Table 9.11 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Ben – Class D)
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Video
"...shorter videos situated around one key point...
[are] much more effective than longer videos
containing more than one point”
"[M]aking video is harder than I thought"
After completing the professional
development course, Ben, like
Michelle above, was in favour of using
shorter videos to efficiently
communicate single points.
Ben summed up his experience with
video in the OLE.
Typography
“I don’t like images; they don’t do anything for
me”.
Ben was a standout among instructor-
participants with a preference for
written language over images. The
quote reflects the emphasis on written
language and the desire for a more
scaled down (and perhaps written
language based) LMS (see §7.3.).
However, following the professional
development course, he wanted to
strike more of a balance between the
two in his OLE.
UI design
“Hiding things in sections is one way to make
things simple”.
Ben was able to identify the value of
UI design methods employed in the
professional development course, such
as Collapsible sections, where students
can click to show or hide content.
“…generally, I try to avoid big [written
language-based] information dumps in the OLE".
Ben was a proponent of a simpler or
even monomodal UI design but not at
the expense of clarity or the need for
students to scroll through large blocks
of text.
Images
Ben’s preference remained the same as in the pre-intervention stage, for an LMS that
allows a much more streamlined experience, eschewing images, and other semiotic
resources in favour of written text. Ben did concede that writing is still open to
misunderstanding without the paralinguistic cues available in a face-to-face situation.
257
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Discussion
“[Students] must make their own decisions about
participation… Not seeing students onscreen
stops conversation in a synchronous session, and
breakout rooms can be hard to facilitate”.
Ben referred specifically to
synchronous discussion in a
videoconference and communication
happening in breakout rooms
Ben described the frustration he
experienced during synchronous
sessions when students failed to turn
on their cameras. He couldn't think of a
way to have students turn them on,
without becoming what he termed
"legalistic".
Semiotic
software
Ben pointed to the opportunities for open communication between students that can occur
during group work, especially when semiotic software (Ben's suggestion was Google Docs)
is intuitive to use, allowing students to fulfil roles (consistent with Zoe's comments below)
and concentrate on the co-construction of knowledge rather than understanding how to use
the software.
Design &
Organisation
“[A move away from recording lectures] spurred
on by the pandemic but which had been sitting
just under the surface for some time needing a
catalyst to drive a change forward”.
Ben noted that, in terms of design and
organisation of a course, it was already
becoming clear to many that a move
away from a traditional "Lecture"
format was underway across many
institutions.
Open
communication
"[Video] allows the teacher to provide students
with a 'face' which, during the pandemic
especially, is particularly important in terms of
social presence and being 'real'".
Ben’s comment here was in reference
to videos that offer a summary of a
topic, answers to questions posed by
students, or ones that express
agreement with students’ points and,
on occasion, appreciation for students’
contributions.
Group
Cohesion
“…probably not that high since it is a very
diverse cohort of students spread across two
campuses and a fully online group”.
"They are here doing the qualification, for the
most part they already know what they are doing
in terms of walking into a classroom and
teaching. These students don't necessarily need
constant messaging from me".
“In-service teachers tend to enrol to study
online, while pre-service teachers are more
likely to enrol in face-to-face courses on
campus”.
Most instructors spoke about group
cohesion as the most important aspect
of social presence. However, this was
Ben’s description. While technically
enrolled at different campuses, 100%
of students were online at this time.
Ben also noted that a considerable
number of students in Class D were
concurrently in-service teachers,
studying in their own unique
circumstances, which could prevent
cohesion.
Ben presented his overall perspective
on the differences in the needs of
undergraduate versus postgraduate
students, wherein the latter, especially
those who were in-service teachers,
were perhaps more autonomous and
had the academic (if not digital)
literacies to undertake tasks with a
minimum of assistance.
258
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Integration &
Resolution
“[V]ideo might be a means to raise students’
awareness of the integration stage, as a model,
as a practice, and at a meta-level for students
who themselves are or will become teachers”.
In pondering issues around integration
and resolution, Ben wondered whether
students could be taught strategies for
reflecting on their prior knowledge and
integrating it with new knowledge.
This would be a ‘potent tool for
language teachers’, he noted.
Professional
development
course (The
intervention)
“[The course] pushed me to find out more about
the CoI and how it is relevant to my practice”.
Ben reported that, in addition to
finding out more after participating in
the professional development course,
the CoI framework would likely have
an impact on the development of his
own research project on professional
development.
9.5.4. Class E – Zoe (Northern University)
9.5.4.1. Class E: Community of Inquiry Survey
In Class E, there was a decrease in the mean scores for CoI survey items in the post-intervention
stage. For items relating to teaching presence, the mean score was 4.23 down from 4.38, for social presence
the mean score in Stage 3 was 3.42 compared to 3.81 in Stage 1, and for survey items relating to cognitive
presence, the mean score was 4.57, down from 4.65. Figures 9.28 and 9.29 and Table 9.7 illustrate these
decreases. Notably, mean scores for survey items related to direct instruction (4.26) and Integration and
Resolution (4.6) showed a slight increase, while group cohesion remained the same at 3.50. The highest
standard deviation was observed for Item 17 (S.D=1.42), and the lowest for Items 1, 11, 25 and 29
(S.D=0.40).
Table 9.12 Community of Inquiry – Class E (Pre- & Post-intervention)
Presence
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Presence Subcategories
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Teaching
4.38
4.23
Design & Organisation
4.66
4.45
Discourse Facilitation
4.23
4.06
Direct Instruction
4.25
4.26
Social
3.81
3.42
Affective Communication
4.16
2.93
Open Communication
3.75
3.83
Group Cohesion
3.50
3.50
Cognitive
4.65
4.57
Trigger & Exploration
4.66
4.55
Integration & Resolution
4.55
4.60
259
Figure 9.26a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class E Pre- & Post-intervention
Figure 9.26b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class E Pre- & Post-intervention
9.5.4.2. Class E: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences
Students in Class E perceived the semiotic resource that most contributed to teaching presence in
Stage Three, with 42 responses. This is compared to 15 responses citing video and assigning it fourth
highest place for contribution to teaching presence in the pre-intervention stage. UI Design was the second
most cited resource at 39 responses, a slight increase from 34 in the pre-intervention stage. Images were
the third most cited resource perceived as contributing to teaching presence in the OLE, with 23 responses,
3
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
Teaching presence
Social presenceCognitive presence
Stage 1 Stage 3
3
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
Design & Organisation
Discourse facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective
communication
Open communication
Group cohesion
Trigger & Exploration
Integration &
Resolution
Stage 1 Stage 3
260
up from 14 responses in the pre-intervention stage of the study. Students indicated that they perceived video
as being the resource contributing the most to establishing social presence in the OLE: it was cited by
students 32 times in Stage 3, compared to 11 in Stage 1. UI design was again the second most cited resource
that students indicated as contributing to social presence, with 23 responses, but this is lower than the 28
responses in the pre-intervention stage that made UI design the most cited resource contributing to social
presence. In the post-intervention stage, UI design was followed by written instructions (18 responses in
the post-intervention stage, up from 16 in the pre-intervention stage) and then discussion (nine responses,
down from 19 in the pre-intervention stage).
Figure 9.27 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class E Pre- & Post-
intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3
Teaching Presence Social Presence Cognitive Presence
Images Video Typography Icons & Emoji Discussion Written instructions UI D esign Audio Other I don't know
261
9.5.4.3. Class E: Semi-Structured Interviews
Table 9.13 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Zoe – Class E)
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Video
"I've received feedback from students that
file sizes for video are sometimes too big
and are difficult to [stream]... students
have had problems downloading them on
different [platforms] as well".
Zoe initially described some of the technical
difficulties encountered with video in the
Class E’s OLE.
She also described her concern that video
provided in an asynchronous mode of
delivery was less interactive. To combat this
to an extent, Zoe included cues in the videos
she created, asking students to pause the
video to respond or undertake a task. She
conceded, however, that there was no way to
check that students were following these
directions.
UI design
“…a significant number of hours…”
“…[but] there were no issues actually
using the platform”.
Zoe noted that student feedback that the
OLE was difficult to navigate initially
prompted her to spend time seeking
feedback from colleagues on what items in
the OLE might be omitted for the benefit of
streamlining the experience for students.
However, Zoe stated she was comfortable
with the Moodle LMS from her own
undergraduate and postgraduate studies at
Northern University.
Images
Zoe was wary of the risk of images distracting students from course content and, like Ben
(above), used the term “streamlined” to describe her preferred kind of LMS. However, she
suggested that the benefit of including images in the OLE outweighed any drawbacks. Zoe
compared the Class E OLE with Class F where each section in the OLE, before any written
language, contained an image that had an instructional and an affective function – setting
context, attempting to activate students’ background knowledge, and (potentially) lifting
the affective barrier.
Discussion
"In a face-to-face class, genuine discussion
often occurs at, or even before, the
beginning of the class. Discussion can
relate to everyday things from outside of
the classroom which helps with social
presence, right? Or it might be related to
homework. It might turn to talking about
what others have said".
In reference to synchronous discussion, Zoe
saw discussion opportunities as important in
terms of equity.
Zoe was clear that she believed genuine
discussion could take place online but
wondered whether authenticity could be
achieved in the same way, especially in
asynchronous discussion.
Zoe attempted to provide the same experience to students studying online (i.e., all of them)
as they would have if they were studying in a face-to-face mode. In addition to posing
questions and eliciting responses, Zoe created discussion tasks that would otherwise take
place in the classroom were it not for the pandemic. Finally, she stated that she believed
the importance of discussion tasks increases over time. In addition to posing questions,
eliciting responses, and setting tasks in a forum, discussion was an opportunity to engage
with students and provide feedback on assessments.
262
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Icons and
hyperlinks
"The use of colour and icons was closer to
the front of my mind after doing the
professional development course".
Interviews included limited discussion about
icons in the OLE. However, Zoe expressed
frustration about the automatic appending of
icons to headings. After the course, Zoe
noted that she consulted with colleagues on
how they were using icons to ensure
consistency across subjects for the same
qualification.
Semiotic
software
“[H5P helps] students to develop more
autonomy and to construct meaning
independently”.
According to Zoe, there was potential for
H5P and other semiotic software to help
students, especially in asynchronous
settings. However, Zoe pointed out some
challenges. Unlike a questionnaire or
multiple-choice quiz created in Moodle,
instructors are unable to view the students’
responses in an H5P activity (although a
mark is assigned in the Moodle grade book).
In addition, it requires instructors to provide
extensive feedback to be automatically
provided to students in H5P based on their
answers. This is in lieu of a verbal
explanation that might be delivered in a
face-to-face context.
Teaching
presence
Class E employed VoiceThread to facilitate group activities, especially peer reflection
where groups provided feedback to others' practice teaching. Initially, Zoe attributed their
use of VoiceThread to a desire to grow social presence and interaction between students.
However, discussing how the task was organised and how students were assigned roles to
fulfil during group work, Zoe realised that this was also a good example of teaching
presence - designing the task (design and organisation), setting the climate for learning
(discourse facilitation), and providing feedback once the task is complete (direct
instruction).
Affective
communication
Zoe noted that there was a significant opportunity to "personalise" the instructor, i.e.,
project themselves as an actual person using video, and that her students enjoyed her dog’s
occasional impromptu appearances on camera.
Professional
development
course (The
intervention)
“[The course] reminded me not to get stuck
with lots of images of white people
pretending to teach and instead use more
authentic images".
Zoe noted that the images often found in
English teaching texts do not always portray
a diverse teaching and learning context.
9.5.5. Class F – Chloe (Northern University)
9.5.5.1. Class F: Community of Inquiry Survey
Class F saw a positive increase of the mean score for items related to teaching presence (from 4.26
pre-intervention to 4.53 post-intervention). However, negative shifts were recorded for items relating to
social presence (3.41 to 3.39) and cognitive presence (4.53 to 4.33). The highest standard deviation was for
Item 8 (S.D=1.30) and the lowest for Item 4 (S.D=0). Further increases were observed in the mean scores
for items relating to design and organisation (4.81), discourse facilitation (4.39) and direct instruction (4.47).
Notably, group cohesion saw a strong increase from a mean score of 2.76 pre-intervention to 3.90. These
results are illustrated in Figures 9.31 and 9.32 and Table 9.16.
263
Table 9.14 Community of Inquiry – Class F (Pre- & Post-intervention)
Presence
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Presence Subcategories
Pre- Mean
Post- Mean
Teaching
4.26
4.53
Design & Organisation
4.52
4.81
Discourse Facilitation
4.05
4.39
Direct Instruction
4.36
4.47
Social
3.41
3.39
Affective Communication
3.73
2.80
Open Communication
3.75
3.42
Group Cohesion
2.76
3.90
Cognitive
4.53
4.33
Trigger & Exploration
4.61
4.61
Integration & Resolution
4.45
4.04
Figure 9.28a Community of Inquiry Presences: Class F Pre- & Post-intervention
Figure 9.28b Community of Inquiry Subcategories: Class D Pre- & Post-intervention
3
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
Teaching presence
Social presenceCognitive presence
Stage 1 Stage 3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.7
5
Design & Organisation
Discourse facilitation
Direct Instruction
Affective communication
Open communication
Group cohesion
Trigger & Exploration
Integration & Resolution
Stage 1 Stage 3
264
9.5.5.2. Class F: Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences
In the post-intervention stage, students in Class F perceived video as contributing to teaching
presence the most (33 responses), followed by UI design (30) and written instructions (19). In the pre-
intervention stage, students also identified typography (11) as contributing to teaching presence. A similar
trend was noted regarding social presence. Video (32), UI design (25) and written instructions (15) made
up the three most cited resources contributing to social presence. Video (25), UI design (24) and images
(18) were cited by students in the post-intervention stage as contributing the most to cognitive presence in
the OLE as well.
Figure 9.29 Semiotic Resources Perceived as Contributing to Presences: Class F Pre- & Post-
intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 3
Teaching Presence Social Presence Cognitive Presence
Images Video Typography Icons & Emoji Discussion Written instructions UI Design Audio Other I don't know
265
9.5.5.3. Class F: Semi-Structured Interviews
Table 9.15 Post-intervention Interview Themes (Chloe – Class F)
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Video
"The technical stuff is getting better,
making Zoom and Echo360
recordings easier. Now I have issues
with copyright and video that can be
used in the course".
Chloe noted that she faced fewer technical
challenges in making videos for her subject.
Despite the workload implications and the
pandemic, Chloe reported feeling satisfied with
the quality of the videos added to the OLE.
UI design
The “Scroll of Death”
The scroll of death is a term coined by Chloe and this researcher over the course of the
pre- and post-intervention interviews. The term refers to an OLE that lacks organisation
and/or has poor UI design, causing students to scroll seemingly endlessly in trying to find
content and presumably “dying” without completing the task. Although the term is
exaggerated, this is a phenomenon that Chloe observed. For Chloe, UI design is less to
do with the use of colour, or written language, or images, and more about
navigation and helping students find the learning objects they are looking for.
Universal Design for Learning
Chloe reported drawing on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose & Meyer, 2002)
principles when designing the Class F OLE. Chloe felt confident, but was also realistic,
about her ability to use multiple means of representation (different semiotic resources to
represent content in ways that meet the needs of all students). In addition, Chloe was
cognisant of the need for OLEs to be inclusive, reflecting the socio-cultural diversity in
classes, and accessible, adjusting the content in the OLE according to students’ access
needs. Chloe investigated and implemented transcriptions and closed captions for videos
in the OLE, for example.
Discussion
“…discussions pose a challenge”.
During her interview, Chloe asked rhetorically
whether mandatory participation in forum
discussions actually worked against the
establishment of group cohesion among
students. However, responding to her own
question, Chloe commented that she has had
some success in engaging students over the
course of the teaching session by making
discussion tasks relevant to students' needs and
their teaching contexts. Furthermore, she found
that setting up discussion tasks so that they were
driven by "sharing ideas related to [other]
assessment tasks" encouraged more participation
among the students.
Affective
communication
“…it was easy to be somewhat
neutral in terms of delivery and the
need to appear "human" wasn't
necessarily my first consideration”.
Chloe was initially sceptical of being able to
foster affective communication – especially in
her own videos. However, Chloe too
experienced what she referred to as her
“Humanising moment” when preparing a video
which required subjects. These came in the form
of her children: "You have to use the resources
you have available to you, right?".
266
Interview topic
Instructor
Notes
Integration &
Resolution
“But is it relevant? [The majority of]
Students won't ever be teaching
online, therefore they still need
experience and practice in the face-
to-face format”.
While instructors identified the same difficulties
with getting students to the resolution stage of
the PIM (cf. Garrison, 2017), Chloe identified a
new issue. While the ability for students to
record and submit video of their practice
teaching was a boon for assessment during the
pandemic, their teaching (or future teaching)
context might be solely based in the face-to-face
classroom. This renders any instruction looking
at online teaching irrelevant.
“…little attention is paid to teaching
online in TESOL grad-level courses,
little attention is paid to methods for
teaching online… Sometimes it gets a
mention later in the course [but] this
has been replaced in recent times by
information about employability”.
Chloe also noted that the majority of TESOL
qualifications don’t spend much time looking at
how to teach English online.
Professional
development
course (The
intervention)
"I thought, 'Oh God!', What can I do
to look at least a bit like that!? But
then [Zoe] posted a video she
recorded during the holiday,
welcoming students with her dog, and
I thought 'Okay'!"
After the pre-intervention interview, Chloe made
herself more familiar with the CoI, especially
social presence, and the seminal paper Garrison
et al. (2001) but found some of the examples in
the professional development course somewhat
daunting.
"I don't have any pets, but I do have
kids! And I had that BBC guy moment
- two kids coming in [while
recording] and not leaving... so yeah.
I had my human moment.
'humanising' me. I’m a teacher… but
I’m also a human!"
For Chloe, a major takeaway from the
professional development course was to do with
social presence and how it applies to her
subject/OLE.
9.6. Summary
This chapter has presented the results from the content analyses of the six OLEs, the modified CoI
survey instrument, and semi-structured interviews, all administered in the post-intervention stage of the
study. These results were compared with the findings of those same methods administered in the pre-
intervention stage. The content analysis showed considerable variation overall in the use of semiotic
resources between the two stages of observation. Individual OLEs showed shifts in the frequency of specific
resources used. Classes A and B (Michelle) and Class C (Ava) saw a marked increase in the use of icons,
for example. The frequency with which photos, and especially profile photos, were observed decreased
noticeably in the OLEs built in Google Classroom. Changes in the Google Classroom UI may be the main
factor leading to the increase in icons and decrease in photographs/profile pictures. Video and synchronous
videoconferencing also increased across three of the OLEs, in Classes A and B and Class E (Chloe).
However, this is a result of moving to online teaching at all of the institutions examined here. Typography
use stayed mostly the same in some respects from the pre-intervention to post-intervention stage, with each
267
instructor employing typography differently depending on preference and the affordances of their particular
LMS. Class D (Ben) stands out for the consistency in resource use between pre- and post-intervention, with
only minor changes in the frequency with which the majority of semiotic resources were observed. The CoI
survey administered to students returned results that were somewhat similar in both pre- and post-
intervention stages, with post-intervention mean scores generally higher than those in the pre-intervention
stage. Survey items relating to social presence showed the greatest variation in responses from pre- to post-
intervention, actually decreasing. The mean scores for responses were used to describe the relative level of
each of the presences and presence subcategories in the six OLEs. These were compared to the mean scores
from the pre-intervention stage. The results of the t-Test show this shift is not statistically significant.
Students’ perceptions of different semiotic resources and whether they contribute to each of the
presences were recorded. The post-intervention stage saw students consistently indicate that UI design,
images, and video were the resources that contributed the most to each of the presences. Finally, this chapter
reported on the semi-structured interviews held with instructors. The interviews showed that instructors
were able to discuss concepts related to the CoI in more detail and even offer their own context-specific
interpretations of what each of the presences mean for their practice. In the face of the pandemic, instructors
were also keenly aware of the affordances of video in their OLE, despite some of the challenges that come
with creating video content.
268
Chapter 10 – Post-intervention Survey of Practice Discussion
This chapter compares and discusses the results of the pre- and post-intervention surveys of
practice reported in Chapter 9. The discussion focuses on how these results address the two research
questions posed in this study with the aim of illustrating the interaction between social semiotics and the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. I situate the present study in relation to previous research reporting
on the CoI, multimodal social semiotics in educational contexts, and online teaching and learning and relate
the findings on instructors’ exploitation of semiotic resources in the online learning environment (OLE) to
existing knowledge about semiotic resource use in other, relevant, contexts.
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?
This study has focused on a set of semiotic resources uncovered through the content analysis of six
OLEs, how these resources are intended or perceived to function by instructors in TESOL teacher education,
and the extent to which students perceive them as contributing to teaching, social, and cognitive presence.
In this section, I discuss the findings of the second survey of practice conducted in the post-intervention
stage of the study relevant to RQ1. The semiotic resources in focus here are those available to the instructor-
participants via the LMS, which might be considered the building blocks of the OLE – the basic elements
instructors use to build and communicate in the OLE. By concentrating on these semiotic resources, how
they are exploited by instructors and perceived by students, a clearer picture of how semiotic resources
shape and indicate CoI presences in the OLE begins to emerge, notwithstanding the constraints and default
actions imposed on instructors by the LMS (e.g., automatic insertion of an icon into a heading or inability
to change the typeface).
10.1.1. The Dominance of Typography and Written Language in OLEs
The content analyses of the six OLEs in this study reveal that the semiotic resource most exploited
by online TESOL instructors is, in fact, written language. This is the case both in the pre- and post-
intervention stages of the study. Further, the increase in the use of video observed in the OLEs, triggered
by the shift to fully online delivery during the COVID19 pandemic, contributed to the dominance of written
language post-intervention as these videos were often accompanied by transcripts. This finding contradicts
Bezemer and Kress’s (2008) assertion that “writing is being displaced by image as the central mode for
representation in multimodal texts” (p. 167) and “is no longer the central mode of representation in learning
materials” (p. 165). This does not seem to be the case in the OLEs analysed here: written language is still
the most dominant resource. Rather than being replaced by images, written language is augmented by
typographical semiotic resources, particularly at the micro- and mesotypographical levels (Stöckl, 2005).
Given the dominance of writing, both before and after the intervention, it is unsurprising that
student responses to the CoI survey in both stages indicate that written language is important for
269
establishing and maintaining the CoI presences. The surprise is that students in this study perceived written
language to be more important for establishing open communication, affective communication, and group
cohesion (social presence), than the subcategories of teaching presence where we might expect written
language to be instrumental in direct instruction (cf. Kress, 2001).
Importantly, written language in the OLE is not simply words on the screen but, through the
multimodal perspective provided by Stöckl’s (2005) grammar of typography, can be understood as a
semiotically diverse resource. Each of the instructor-participants in this study indicated that typography,
for example bold and italic typefaces or one form of indentation or another (e.g., listing), is important to
communicating in the OLE. The augmentation of written language through typography was found
throughout the six OLEs. The extent to which typography options were utilised by instructors varied from
single words being bolded or italicised to emphasise an important term or date to perhaps the most extreme
case in Class F with the use of the so-called card UI object, which Stöckl (2015) refers to as an
ornamentation device, to frame and make a chunk of text stand out, almost segregating it, from surrounding
text (see §9.8).
Treating typography and written language as semiotic resources in their own right, while
acknowledging their interdependence, is consistent with how typography is viewed in the field of
multimodality (e.g., Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2013). In this study, in addition to its role in extending written
language, typography is viewed as a visual semiotic resource, distinct from linguistic choices and
possessing its own meaning potential (Serafini & Clausen 2016). Ultimately, typographic resources in the
OLE, especially at the micro- and macrotypographical (see §4.3.2.) level, are typically language-centric
(that is, applied and adding layers of meaning to written language – e.g., italicisation). While
mesotypographical resources are concerned with the position of written language on the page or screen,
macrotypographical resources (e.g., a numbered list) can be seen as augmenting written language by
providing organisation, character and emphasis. Semiotic resources at the level of macrotypography were
consistently observed as being examples of teaching presence and were used by instructors in a direct
instruction capacity, either communicating information or modelling what Shea et al. (2015) would refer
to as the adherence to behavioural norms online (see, Appendix B), or what might be seen as modelling
appropriate academic behaviour. An example is the inclusion of reference and citation information in posts
by Chloe (Class F) Chloe’s reasoning for implementing this approach was twofold – first, it made finding
readings and references for particular weeks and topics a little easier for students, and that this would benefit
students’ referencing in their assessments. Second, Chloe hoped that students would emulate this behaviour
in their own teaching “down the road”.
Even though this is an example of Chloe implicitly modelling the use of references, it is an
indication of the teaching presence subcategory direct instruction. Here, “direct instruction” refers to the
teaching presence subcategory rather than describing the teaching behaviour. In the CoI Framework
“implicit instruction” (the behaviour) still falls under direct instruction – the subcategory of teaching
presence to do with the transmission of content/subject knowledge. The decision to add a list to each week’s
270
content, rather than an overall list at the bottom of the page or on a separate page, is a choice of layout that
also indicates teaching presence, (design and organisation).
The analysis of typography in the OLEs also highlights the capacity of non-linguistic semiotic
resources to contribute to multiple subcategories of presence simultaneously. The linguistic indicators of
teaching presence proposed by Rourke et al. (2001), Shea et al. (2010) and Swan and Shih (2005) (see
Appendix B) are unambiguous but suggest a single function. For example, instructor Michelle (Class B)
exhibits design and organisation (teaching presence) when they set out the time parameters and methods
(marks allocated to responses) using written language for a task in week 10 of the course (see Figure 10.1).
However, this written language does not go beyond or have an influence on anything other than teaching
presence.
Figure 10.1 Teaching Presence in Class B
In contrast, Michelle scaffolds students’ understanding of how to complete the task – or how to use
the medium (of the LMS) effectively, by providing a link to an example of semiotic software (Google
slides), an example of design and organisation (teaching presence). The hyperlink functions navigationally
and is an example of an ensemble of more than one semiotic resource (image, colour to help identify it is
a link to Google slides, and written language) (cf. §10.1.2). Thus, Michelle is attending to teaching presence
but is also providing a triggering event (cognitive presence/PIM) by using the link. Students presumably
will need to explore (cognitive presence/PIM) and integrate new knowledge (cognitive presence/PIM) from
the slides in order to complete the task, which is an example of resolution (cognitive presence/PIM). The
content of the task – a professional introduction from students as they describe themselves to fictional
271
parents also elicits examples of open communication (social presence). As a result, in one post all three CoI
presences have been addressed (although not equally), including trying to help students reach the resolution
stage of the PIM (cognitive presence). Moreover, Michelle has achieved this by utilising at least four
semiotic resources in addition to the opportunity for discussion directly below the post should students have
questions. Such exploitation of semiotic resources suggests that unambiguous, single function indicators of
presence do not fully capture the influence non-linguistic semiotic resources can exert on multiple
presences and subcategories.
10.1.2. Non-linguistic Semiotic Resources in the OLE
The content analyses of the six OLEs identified a total of 42 distinct non-linguistic semiotic
resources, across both stages of the study. Some of these resources included language. For example, audio,
video, and videoconferencing often include speech, while images such as graphs can include writing. For
ease of coding, analysis, and discussion, these 42 semiotic resources were condensed into eight categories.
These categories are summarised in Table 10.1. Of the 42 resources, 21 (50%) are typographic resources,
whose dominance and impact are discussed in §10.1.1 above. The resources most used by instructors after
typography, are icons and internal hyperlinks.
Table 10.1 Non-Linguistic Semiotic Resources Identified in Classes A – F
Category (Alphabetical)
Examples
Audio
External
e.g., Music, Podcasts.
Internal
e.g., Recordings of content, Recordings of instructions,
Voice overs.
Discussion
Forums, discussion boards, instructor posts, instructor replies,
student posts.
Images
Charts, Figures, Illustrations, Line drawings, Photographs.
Icons & Emoji
e.g., , , and , e.g., , , and.
UI design
(Consistent with preferred design principles, lesson sequence,
possible within the LMS).
Typography
Microtypography
Typeface
Sans serif, Serif fonts
Size
Coloured typefaces
Mesotypography
Alignment
Centred, Justified, Left, Right
Line spacing
272
Category (Alphabetical)
Examples
Macrotypography
Typographic emphasis
Bold, Italics, Underlining
Paragraphs, Lists
Folder directory, Instructions, Learning outcomes,
Ordered, References, Unordered
Ornamentation devices
Card, Highlighting, Table.
Video
Internal
e.g., Interactive video (H5P), lectures, tutorial/workshop
sessions, Videoconference, Video walkthroughs of tasks,
External
e.g., Animation, Interactive video (H5P),
UI/Design/Layout
The overall “look” of the OLE including organisation of
individual objects and groups of objects on the page/screen.
plus
Written Language
Most hyperlinks observed in the OLEs are not represented by a single semiotic resource but are
instead complex ensembles of written language, colour representing “fresh” or “already clicked” links, and
typography such as bolding and underlining. Images and icons were also observed acting as hyperlinks.
Examples of hyperlinks from the six OLEs are illustrated in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2 Examples of Hyperlinks in OLEs
Class
Example
Semiotic Resources
A
URL hyperlink
• Written language
• Colour
• Underlining
B
Text hyperlink
• Written language
C
Thumbnail hyperlink
• Image
D
Text hyperlink
• Written language
• Colour
E
Text hyperlink
• Written language
• Colour
F
Text hyperlink
• Written language
• Colour
273
The benefits of non-linguistic semiotic resources in relation to language learning are discussed in
research examining content and language integrated learning (CLIL) contexts, where subject content (e.g.,
science) is taught through a learner’s second language. Although a study of English language learners in
science classrooms by Williams and Tang (2020) does not employ the CoI framework, it reports that the
integration of non-linguistic semiotic resources aided learners’ use of science discourse (which I interpret
as an indicator of open communication), facilitated multicultural learning communities (group cohesion),
and promoted authentic learning experiences (cognitive presence), all consistent with elements of the CoI
framework and in line with approaches to teacher education in TESOL by virtue of being situated in a CLIL
context.
10.1.3. Non-Linguistic Resources Indicating Teaching, Social & Cognitive Presence: The case of Video
The ability of semiotic resources to influence multiple presences simultaneously is not limited to
typography and may also reflect instructors’ careful consideration of the needs of students, consistent with
Kress’s (2001) concept of interest and sign makers being aware of their audience. For example, in order to
support students’ understanding of their assessment tasks, instructors in this study conceivably had at least
three semiotic resources, or resource ensembles available to them – an ordered list of instructions, a flow
chart or process diagram, and a video walkthrough of the assessment. In identifying students’ needs and
choosing a way to address them, the instructor is establishing teaching presence in the design and
organisation of the overall educational experience. To illustrate, rather than using written language on the
screen in a video, instructor Ben (Class D, see §9.2.4.) narrated videos in the OLE, talking through each
component of the assessments and relating it to the subject content. These videos build teaching presence
(direct instruction), while also portraying Ben as “real”, indicating social presence (open communication)
to students who may have only met Ben online, thereby contributing to social presence (group cohesion).
Finally, by creating a video that shows each step of the assessment task, Ben is providing students with a
triggering event, and communicating to students what they need to explore and what assessment
information they need to integrate with their existing knowledge to complete the assessment tasks
successfully (resolution), thus helping to establish cognitive presence.
By exploiting video, instructors are establishing teaching presence (design & organisation, because
there is a rationale behind their choice e.g., the video depicts a “good” example of teaching practice, and
direct instruction e.g., the video depicts a “correct” example of teaching practice). Ben’s use of video is
also an example of social presence (modelling and establishing open communication), and cognitive
presence (communicating a triggering event and stimulating students to explore a concept further by
bringing the authentic content closer to them or “into the classroom”). Instructor Chloe’s use of
VoiceThread (2021, VoiceThread LLC) (see §6.2.5.), having students create a video in response to their
peers’ videos, speaks to cognitive presence as well, providing opportunities for integrating existing and
new knowledge while also giving students an opportunity to disclose things about themselves (social
presence)Completing and screening a finished video product in a lesson leaves students with a multimodal
artefact of their learning and sees them reach the elusive resolution stage of the PIM (cognitive
274
presence).Instructors participating in other studies have noted the efficacy of video for sharing subject
content and expertise as well as differentiating instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners; for example,
Cisneroz (2021) (direct instruction and design & organisation). Videos created by instructors have also
been assessed as enabling instructors to present themselves as “real”, authentic, and approachable (Cisneroz,
2021) (open communication and affective communication).
The increase in the number of students across all six OLEs indicating that video contributes to the
CoI presences (347 responses in the pre-intervention stage to 623 post-intervention) is potentially the result
of the following factors:
• The professional development intervention, which placed emphasis on video, influencing
instructors in increasing their use of video, and
• Institutional responses (confirmed by instructors in semi-structured interviews) to the shift to
fully online delivery cancellation of face-to-face learning during the COVID-19 pandemic,
leading to increased use of video.
• A combination of these two factors.
Because institutional responses were unique to the post-intervention stage of the study, I chose to highlight
Ben’s (Class D) use of video in this section, as it was observed in both the pre- and post-intervention stages
of the study. Student perceptions of the impact of video on teaching, social, and cognitive presence in this
study are in line with studies reported in the literature that have examined video in several different
disciplines. The results of those studies can again be interpreted in terms of the CoI framework. Students
view video as contributing to instructor immediacy (discourse facilitation), clarity (direct instruction) and
engagement (open communication) (Cisneroz, 2021). In addition, research described in the nursing
education literature suggests that video is perceived by students as being most effective when it is used to
offer timely feedback, make learning experiences interactive, and provide opportunities for students to
establish relationships with their classmates and instructors (Seckman, 2018).
10.2.4. Icons
Icons were one of the non-linguistic semiotic resources to receive emphasis in the design,
development, and delivery of the professional development intervention, albeit implicitly. The emphasis
on icons was notices by at least one participant, Zoe (Class E) who noted that after completing the
professional development intervention the use of icons in their OLE was at the forefront of mind (cf.
§9.5.4.3). . The use of icons to provide specific information and navigational cues underpinned their use in
the professional development intervention consistent with Roskos et al. (2007) which suggested that the
effective use of icons may aid instructors in “designing elements that instruct user[s] enough, but not too
much” (p. 182). This is an ongoing consideration when users of the OLE have English as their second
language and a useful model of how teacher language should manifest in the OLE. The post-intervention
content analysis showed a marked increase in the frequency of icons in OLEs for Classes A (23 in the pre-
intervention stage, 226 in the post-intervention stage), B (24 and 176), and C (111 and 283) and E (95 and
275
195). However, the frequency of icons in OLEs for Classes D (338 in the pre-intervention stage, 207 in the
post-intervention stage) and F (135 and 120) decreased over the same period.
Variations in the frequency and extent to which icons were observed in the post-intervention stage
cannot be entirely attributed to the professional development intervention, and instructor rationale behind
exploiting icons in the OLE is not easy to intuit. Following on from the professional development
intervention, instructors may have used icons for identifying types of content or aiding students in
navigating the OLE like what they saw in the Notion LMS during the intervention. Even then, the
implementation of icons is, at least to some extent, dictated by the LMS, which may add iconography
automatically, which was the case in Classes A – C after an update to the Google Classroom LMS and
Class E as described by instructor Zoe. Additionally in one case (Class D), icons use was the result of the
work of an educational developer albeit in consultation with instructor Ben, and the decrease in icons in
Class F (Chloe) (135 pre-intervention and 120 post-intervention) is small compared with the changes in
other OLEs.
10.2.5. Discussion Opportunities
Opportunities for discussion are important for establishing social presence. Yet among instructor-
participants, opposing views on discussion emerged. Instructor Ben (Class D) suggested that, as the
teaching session progressed it was likely that participation by students in discussion forums would decline.
Ben also noted that at the postgraduate level, students are responsible for and make their own decisions
about participating in discussion (§9.5.3.3.). On the other hand, instructor Zoe (Class E) saw discussion
growing in importance as the teaching session progressed. According to Zoe, the key to maintaining the
level of student engagement in discussion tasks was having students discuss authentic topics like the
conversations that might spontaneously occur in a face-to-face setting (§9.5.4.3.).
Responses to the CoI survey administered in the post-intervention stage yielded a mean social
presence score of 3.94 for Classes A, B and C (Google Classroom) from 4.0 in the pre-intervention stage,
and 3.56 for Classes D, E and F (Moodle) down from 3.65. Discussion and student replies to posts occur
in line and appear chronologically in Google Classroom. Therefore, it is possible that the more prominent
opportunities for discussion in Google Classroom contribute to higher mean scores for social presence in
Classes A – C. By comparison, posts and responses only occur in dedicated discussion forums and are
harder to locate in Moodle. To reach a discussion forum in Moodle, the user must click through to a new
page and find the discussion thread they want to contribute to. This suggests that discussion is difficult to
locate in the spatio-temporal organisation of an LMS (Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2012), much more so than
in Google Classroom. Despite the difficulty in locating discussion, Moodle allows for more organisation
of discussions by thread and by topic, potentially enhancing teaching and cognitive presence, but it also
means that opportunities for communication are at least two steps (if not more) away from the front page
of the OLE. Despite the ability to apply more organisation to discussion in Moodle, this does not seem to
have translated into higher mean scores for social presence in either the pre- or post-intervention stages of
the study. Figures 9.2-9.7 show the OLEs built in Moodle have (Classes D – F) have fewer examples of
276
discussion (instructor posts, comments, and student posts) than those OLEs built in Google Classroom
(Classes A – C).
As a further point of comparison, the professional development intervention employed Notion
(Notion Inc., 2022) as the LMS. As noted in §8.2.2., Notion allows users to highlight any object on the
page and make a comment against it. In some ways, the process is thus reversed compared to Google
Classroom, with an icon of a “speech bubble” ( ) appearing in Notion only after a user has made a
comment alongside a number indicating how many comments are attached to that object. Therefore, the
opportunities for communication through comments and replies in Notion are potentially infinite compared
to Google Classroom and Moodle. Additionally, the student cohort in this study provides a discipline-
specific point of difference. As pre- and in-service teachers they may be more inclined to post and comment,
and be aware of the value of interaction with peers. Consequently, we could expect a higher level of social
presence in an OLE built in Notion. The CoI survey administered to OTL in TESOL participants at the end
of the intervention confirmed this, yielding a mean social presence score of 4.05. The professional
development intervention attracted a total of 111 comments from participants in the four modules plus the
discussion thread incorporated into the “getting started” section.
Table 10.3 Social Presence Post-Intervention – Google Classroom, Moodle (Intervention – Notion)
LMS
Social Presence
Pre- Mean Score
Post- Mean Score
Moodle (Class D, E, F)
3.65
3.56
Google Classroom (Class A, B, C)
4.0
3.94
Notion (Intervention)
-
4.05
Given the possibility that students may be taking icons that denote opportunities for discussion for
granted, the ability and ease with which users can comment or otherwise join a discussion may be a more
important contributor to social presence. While icons play a part in helping users to identify opportunities
for discussion, and an instructor’s choice to use an icon to denote discussion would indicate teaching
presence (design and organisation), the discussion itself still utilises written language as the main means
for communicating. Regardless of the way in which students are directed to discussion in the LMS and the
semiotic resources used to communicate, opportunities for discussion have a positive impact on
collaborative performance (i.e., group work) and thus social presence (Guo et al., 2021).
10.2.6. Layout (UI/design)
The positive impact of UI/design on student perceptions was somewhat surprising with responses
to the modified CoI survey showing layout/UI design was either the first or second most cited resource
perceived as contributing to teaching presence. Like many of the indicators of the design and organisation
subcategory of teaching presence, considerations of UI and layout in the OLE are mostly complete before
the first lesson is delivered or the first student logs on to the LMS. Usually, there are only minor changes
277
to the OLE as a subject is delivered. Therefore, a coherent and logical layout in the OLE, with content
organised chronologically or by theme, would indicate teaching presence, especially design and
organisation. In complementary papers, Goh and colleagues (2013; 2014) and Goh et al. (2014) explore
student and instructor perceptions of the LMS and reach similar conclusions, namely, that instructors can
accomplish a considerable amount of direct instruction (perhaps of the less interesting but necessary
“knowledge transmission” kind) through the provision of content/subject matter in the LMS but that
students only find this useful when content is organised in a way that makes it easy to find information. I
suggest that attention to UI design and layout is equivalent in some ways to planning a syllabus or unit of
work and is in addition to such planning since syllabi and units of work seldom come to a teacher or
instructor pre-packaged and ready for online delivery. Just as an instructor would plan a lesson or unit of
work for face-to-face delivery, creating resources, examining the textbook, making decisions about
procedural scaffolding, planning verbal scaffolding, and selecting appropriate tasks, so too do they
incorporate all these actions, behaviours and objects into the preparation of online delivery. These all
contribute to design and organisation (teaching presence).
10.2.7. Summary
In sum, we have seen through the use of content analyses in both the pre- and post-intervention
stages that instructors have exploited over 40 different semiotic resources in their OLEs. Eight categories
of non-linguistic semiotic resource were identified along with written language. which was observed as
being the most used resource across all of the OLEs. The rationale for employing semiotic resources differs
from instructor to instructor somewhat but is always aligned to instructors attempting to meet the needs of
their students, a fact communicated by instructors during semi-structured interviews before and after the
intervention. Students also perceived written language as being important to establishing social presence.
However, students’ perceptions changed in the post-intervention stage as seen in Table 10.4 with students
indicating that they perceived video as the number one semiotic resource contributing to teaching, social,
and cognitive presence:
Table 10.4 Semiotic Resources Identified by Students as Contributing to Presences (Post-
intervention)
Presence
Subcategory
Semiotic Resource
Freq.
Teaching Presence
Design & Organisation
Video
63
Discourse facilitation
Video
70
Direct instruction
Video
33
Social Presence
Affective expression
Video
49
Open communication
Video
56
Group cohesion
Video
33
Cognitive Presence
Triggering event,
Exploration
Video
50
Integration
Resolution
Video
66
278
This is a considerable change from the pre-intervention stage of the study and while attention was
given to the use of video in the OLE, its affordances and participants expressed some of the challenges they
thought they would likely experience, this result is likely the result of the pandemic, the shift to fully online
delivery of subjects and institutional mandates that video be used in place of face-to-face learning.
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?
The professional development intervention designed and conducted in this PhD project focused on
multimodality and assisting TESOL instructors to implement semiotic resources in their online practice,
resulting in an increase of the level of CoI presences in their OLE. The relative effectiveness of the
professional development intervention is reflected in the following:
1. Changes in resource use observed in the post-intervention content analyses of the six OLEs,
including increases in comments from instructors, images, and video, discussion during semi-
structured interviews with instructors,
2. Changes in the mean scores for teaching, social, and cognitive presence from the CoI survey
administered in the pre- and post-intervention stages of this study to students, and
3. Changes in student perception of which semiotic resources influence teaching, social, and cognitive
presence.
When considering these changes, it is important to again note the departure of instructor-
participants Tayla (Class C) and Sam (Class E) who ended their participation in the study after completing
the intervention (discussed previously, see §5.5.1. and §8.2.3.). Tayla and Sam’s respective OLEs were
taken over by instructors Ava (Class C) and Zoe (Class E). This means that the pre and post intervention
surveys of these classes' OLEs cannot be compared as an indication of implementation following the
intervention. Specifically, that any changes to the OLEs of the instructors who left cannot be attributed to
the impact of the intervention alone. However, the new instructors completed the intervention, and this may
still have had an influence on their practice in the OLE, more than what may have occurred had they not
participated in the intervention. This is evidenced by Zoe who, during the semi-structured interviews,
specifically noted the influence of the intervention on how they conceptualised icons and that their attention
was drawn to their use in the OLE she had inherited (see §9.5.7.3. above, and 10.3.2. below). Additionally,
the qualitative data gathered from these two instructor-participants and their OLEs, continued to provide
context to the efficacy of the intervention, and the changes in semiotic resources observed in the other OLEs
examined as part of the study.
279
Figure 10.2 Total Frequency All Semiotic Resources All Classes Pre- and Post-intervention
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Colour
Serif
Sans Serif
Bold
Underlined
Italics
Highlight
Other
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Alignment
Line Spacing
Unordered List
Ordered List
Instructions
Other
Learning outcomes
Cards/UI for activities
Reference lists
Paragraphs
Table
Expanded folder
Icons
Emoji
Photograph
Drawing/Illustration
Chart/figure
Videoconference
External video
Native video
Interactive video
Animation
Personalised video
External (embedded)
Instructor Posts
Instructor Comments/replies
Student Posts
Internal
External
Typography Icons & Emoji Images Video Audio Discussion Hyperlinks
All Classes Pre All Classes Post
Increase in the number of
icons in the OLE.
Decrease in use of bold
typeface (still more than any
other resource)
Increases in paragraphs and
the use of smaller fonts
Increases in semiotic
resources categorised as
video.
280
10.3.1. Changes in Frequency of Resource Use.
The survey of practice undertaken in the post-intervention stage of the study indicates that the
intervention led to an increase in the use of non-linguistic semiotic resources overall. This increase is
captured in Figure 10.2, which illustrates the changes in semiotic resource use across all six of the OLEs.
More specifically, we see increases in the use of video, icons, paragraphs and the small type faces.
The use of video in the OLE was explicitly discussed in the professional development intervention.
Examples included video embedded in the OLE from external sources and video created by instructors,
through semiotic software such as VoiceThread (VoiceThread LLC, 2021), and synchronous
videoconferencing. The intervention focused on the creation of video by instructors in the service of
increasing the level of teaching presence (direct instruction) and the affordances video offers for
communicating subject content (e.g., Bétrancourt & Kalliopi, 2018). The intervention also asked
participants to consider video for its ability to increase levels of open communication (social presence),
using video to portray oneself as “real”, and affective communication (social presence), providing authentic
content and examples to students that elicits an affective response (e.g., Conrad, 2015; Oberne, 2017;
Walters & Henry, 2019). The post-intervention stage revealed increases in both video embedded in the
OLE from external sources and video created by instructors. Not only did video elicit a wide range of
comments from participants during the intervention, but it also featured in the discussion during post-
intervention interviews with instructors. Most instructors spoke confidently about being able to identify
and use the affordances of video to teach subject content. However, instructors continued to note the
negative workload implications around making video, especially now that they were required by their
institutions to make video content due to teaching moving to fully online.
In contrast, icon use was only implicitly modelled in the intervention, yet participants using both
Google Classroom and Moodle noted their awareness of icons due to their LMSs automatically adding
icons to headings and other objects in the OLE (as noted by Class E instructor Zoe, see §9.5.7.3.).
Comments about the LMS appending icons to objects such as headings were negative only to the extent
that steps to change them were not intuitive and the limited number of options didn’t correspond to every
situation where an icon would be useful for drawing attention to a heading or section within the OLE.
Instructors’ experiences in this case are consistent with an LMS forcing an instructor along a certain design
path, which is reported in Hutchison (2017). However, instructor-participants also noted the usefulness of
icons in the OLE in terms of navigation and aesthetics (Class A & B instructor Michelle). This perception
echoes the thoughts of instructors and students captured in numerous studies examining LMS usage (e.g.,
Balasubramanian et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2020).
Although icons, like typography, were one of the most prevalent non-linguistic semiotic resources
employed in the OLEs, students across all classes perceived them as contributing little to the CoI presences.
This is in opposition to findings by Kumar et al. (2020) which reported that students perceived icons as
useful for identifying different content in the OLE and de Campos Filho et al. (2019) which suggested
students receive some motivation and satisfaction when attractive icons are used within the OLE.
281
Student responses to items related to the use of icons in the CoI survey are not specific to one OLE
or another. Students responded in the same way regardless of the LMS their OLE is built upon and the
number and use of icons in their OLE. It also appears that some of the complex metaphors that underpin
icon use either have no influence on how students interact with icons in the OLE. For example, the “paper
plane” ( ) is arguably the most prevalent icon in Google Classroom and forms the button users click to
submit (or send) a post or comment in the OLE. The same icon appears in Gmail, Google Docs, Sheets,
and Slides etc. and functions in the same way i.e., to submit or send an email or comment. It may be that
some icons are simply taken for granted by students already familiar with what they “mean”.
10.3.2. The CoI Survey
In students’ responses to CoI survey items relating to social presence, we see a shift towards greater
disagreement in the post-intervention stage. This trend echoes comments from instructor-participants at all
three institutions who noted the difficulty of maintaining a positive tone in interactions with students due
to the pandemic. The highest level of disagreement was found in responses to affective communication
items. Compared to the pre-intervention stage, where 75.8% of responses indicated some or strong
agreement with Item 16 (Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction),
only 49% somewhat or strongly agreed in the post-intervention stage. The mean score for Item 16 is 3.34
(S.D.=1.31). Prima facie, Item 16 is somewhat subjective as Abbitt & Boone (2021) acknowledge: some
people just dislike communicating online. However, fewer respondents indicated they somewhat (5) or
strongly disagreed (2) with Item 16 in the pre-intervention stage than in the post-intervention stage (17 and
4). The results for Item 16 reported here are consistent with those in Diaz et al. (2010) (n=412). Although
Diaz et al.’s sample was larger, the overall pattern of results, with high scores for teaching and cognitive
presence and lower for social presence, is similar to the results from the post-intervention stage in the
present study, as shown in Figure 10.3 and Table 10.5.
Table 10.5 Mean Scores Presences Post-Intervention vs. Diaz et al. (2010)
Presence
Post- Mean
Diaz et al. (2010)
Teaching Presence
4.41
4.05
Social Presence
3.78
3.52
Cognitive Presence
4.39
3.77
282
Figure 10.3 Mean Scores Presences Post-Intervention vs. Diaz et al. (2010)
Both Diaz et al. (2010) and Abbitt and Boone (2021) suggest that students may not perceive social
presence in the same way as teaching and cognitive presences. This may be a consequence of the item
difficulty of Item 16 in the CoI survey, demonstrated by Abbitt and Boone’s (2021) analysis. In their Rasch
analysis, Abbitt and Boone (2021) note that the item difficulty for Item 16 may be the result of an overlap
between Item 16 and items in the open communication subcategory; that is, items in the open and affective
communication subcategories are asking the same thing as Item 16 to a greater or lesser extent (p. 191).
However, the way students perceive social presence may also reflect the nature and characteristics of
computer-mediated communication more generally, where issues of immediacy and potential lack of social
connection, and difficulty with context cues continue to receive attention in the literature (e.g., Chew & Ng,
2021; Gerhardt, 2021; Ntombela, 2021). Ultimately, the level of social presence in any OLE may come
down to students’ and instructors' personal preferences for communicating online. Potentially, the number
of respondents indicating some or strong disagreement with Item 16 in the post-intervention stage of the
study is a result of factors outside of the study. The move to 100% online delivery was both abrupt for
many students and instructors and may not have been students’ preference for their learning. Table 10.6
summarises the mean scores and standard deviation for responses to the CoI survey in the pre- and post-
intervention stages of the study.
Table 10.6 Presences – Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D.) Pre- & Post-intervention
Presence
Pre- Mean
Pre- S.D
Post- Mean
Post- S.D
Teaching Presence
4.28
0.90
4.41
0.95
Social Presence
3.87
1.06
3.78
1.18
Cognitive Presence
4.38
0.81
4.39
0.82
Figure 10.4 shows the combined means for all classes, and indicates an increase in teaching presence post-
intervention, with cognitive presence remaining steady, and a decline in social presence.
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Post- Mean Diaz et al. (2010)
283
Figure 10.4 Presences Pre- & Post-intervention Classes A – F
Instructor Zoe (Class E) is an example of how the professional development intervention may have
had an effect on how instructor-participants approached the development and delivery of their OLEs
between the end of the intervention and the beginning of the next teaching session. We know this from the
statement made by Zoe (Class E) who described semiotic resources and icons as being at the forefront of
their mind after the intervention (see §9.5.7.3.). It is also possible that an unintended consequence of the
professional development intervention was instructors attending to behaviours consistent with teaching
presence, e.g., design and organisation, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction, before and during the
teaching session at the expense of a more equal distribution of their efforts in establishing cognitive
presence and especially social presence. This is reflected in the overall mean scores for the CoI survey.
When considered together, the six classes all exhibit high levels of teaching and cognitive presence, yet
social presence is low, relative to the other two presences. Where we see increases or decreases in the use
of semiotic resources in the OLEs, the choice to either use or discard a resource is indicative of design and
organisation (teaching presence) (see Appendix B).
Student responses to the CoI survey in both the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study
indicate similar perceptions of semiotic resources and their influence on the presences. Responses are
summarised in Figure 10.5, which shows the frequency with which a resource was identified as contributing
to the CoI presences.
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
Pre- Mean Post- Mean
284
Figure 10.5 Semiotic Resources – Frequency of Identification as Contributing to Presences
10.3.3. Video
As indicated above, the post-intervention stage saw an increase in students’ perception of video as
an important contributor to presence. This is likely a combination of instructors including more video in
the design of the OLE following the professional development intervention as well as institutional
requirements reported by instructors in response to the pandemic in late 2020 when the post-intervention
CoI survey was administered to students. Institutional requirements for teaching during the pandemic were
investigated by Singh et al. (2021) which observed 69% of teachers using video in late 2020 compared to
45.1% a year prior. Regardless of the relative influence of the intervention versus institutional requirements,
the use of video is important in the OLE. One of the affordances of video, according to instructors, is s the
ability to provide students with authentic examples of course content, language use, and TESOL methods,
claims that are supported in the literature (e.g., Cisneroz, 2021). Furthermore, the use of video is a semiotic
practice students engage in outside of the classroom through the use of social semiotic software like Tik
Tok and YouTube. As such, students have existing knowledge of short form video and the technology
resources required to access it. Instructors can take advantage of this existing knowledge and employ video
and associated semiotic software to challenge students to use critical skills (Lambert & Cuper, 2008).
10.3.4. Instructor-participants and the PIM
The professional development intervention was designed, developed, and delivered with the PIM
in mind. From a top-down perspective, the intervention acted as a triggering event for instructors by inviting
instructors to explore the concepts of semiotic resources and the intersection of multimodality and the CoI.
Instructors’ comments in the professional development OLE provided evidence that they had engaged in
integration, and this is also reflected in students’ responses to teaching presence items in the CoI survey. In
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
36
109
180 211
287 318 347
486
45
135 185
284 306
370
623
483
Pre-intervention Post-intervention
285
the example illustrated by Figure 10.5 the participant marches the discussion of social presence with their
existing knowledge of neuroscience and brain plasticity:
Figure 10.6 Example of Integration During the Professional Development Intervention
This result suggests that it is possible that some of the participants in the intervention went on to
reach the resolution stage of the PIM. However, the intervention may not have been as successful as first
thought based on the results of the CoI survey administered to intervention participants. While it would be
unreasonable to expect an equal increase in teaching, social, and cognitive presence across the board
following the intervention, the decline in mean scores for social presence point to the possibility that other
instructors were not quite able to reach the resolution stage of the PIM. This is one of the concerns raised
by Garrison (2014), who noted the difficulty in progressing students (or instructor-participants in this case)
beyond the exploration phase of the PIM. To address this, I attempted to “push” integration to some extent
by asking participants in the intervention to create a goal of incorporating one of the concepts they
encountered, into their practice in the post-intervention stage of the study. However, Integration and
resolution may not be immediately apparent after the intervention and may constitute a process that takes
longer than the period here between intervention and the start of the teaching session. In this case. we can
only rely on the second survey of practice to gauge whether or not instructors reached the resolution stage
of the PIM. Notwithstanding the discussion of future research opportunities discussed in the next chapter,
further longitudinal investigation of instructors and their OLEs may reveal more concrete evidence of
resolution. Interestingly, the difficulties learners experience in completing the stages of the PIM (e.g.,
Garrison, 2017) do not appear to be connected to age, level, proficiency, qualifications or experience, given
that resolution does not seem to have been experienced by the instructor-participants here.
The results of the post-intervention CoI survey also suggest that students may perceive things
differently from instructors. The overall mean scores for teaching and cognitive presence were high and
286
relatively consistent across the two stages of the study. This is not surprising, as the instructor-participants
are accomplished educators with multiple qualifications, publications, and years of experience in their field,
and able to provide a consistent educational experience to their students. Although the mean scores over
the two stages were high relative to other studies (see §10.3.2.) and the increase seen between stages was
small, there is no obvious decline in mean scores for the presences. Therefore, it appears that the
intervention was of some benefit to instructors. This assertion is strengthened when considering the results
of the content analysis which showed increases in frequency for some of the semiotic resources modelled
in the intervention, and discussions during interviews where instructor-participants talked about the CoI
and their choices of semiotic resources. Considering all three results also supports one of the original
methodological assertions I made about mixed-methods approaches utilising multiple quantitative and
qualitative approaches to triangulate sources of evidence to yield a much fuller, or more complete picture
of what is going on in the OLE for the instructors.
The results presented in this study are consistent with others reported in the literature. In a study
similar in design to this one, Purwandari et al. (2022) examined OTL in undergraduate engineering courses
at an Indonesian university, with students in six online engineering classes (n=187) responding to the CoI
survey. The authors suggest that instructors need to be equipped with digital and pedagogical competencies
to be able to facilitate discourse (not just in forums). Moreover, instructors require institutional support
characterised by continued professional development. Professional development programs should include
peer reviews of online teaching and evaluation of the processes involved in designing, developing and
delivering semiotically rich OTL (Purwandari et al., 2022, p. 629).
10.6. Summary
The analysis of the data gathered across the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study found
that, of the 48 semiotic resources identified in this study, written language was the most prevalent, or even
dominant, semiotic resource in the OLE. Rather than being replaced by images and other combinations of
semiotic resources, written language was augmented or extended through typography adding layers of
meaning. Typography varied in size, weight and frequency, but by virtue of being connected to written
language was the most frequently observed non-linguistic semiotic resource in the six OLEs examined in
both pre- and post-intervention analyses. Furthermore, the high frequency of written language meant that
students in the OLE may have come to expect written language as the main form of teacher-to-student
communication, thus explaining students’ preference for written instructions as a means of establishing or
indicating social presence. (RQ1). Therefore, written language needs to continue to receive attention in
OTL, keeping in mind the meaning conveyed through choices in both language (lexis, grammar, and
semantics) and typography.
An increase in the use of video most non-linguistic semiotic resources across all six OLEs was
observed in the post-intervention stage of the study (RQ2). Increased use of video resulted in additional
written language being added to OLEs in the form of transcripts. Such transcripts and the attention to
accessibility is an additional indicator of teaching presence (design & organisation). Here, the professional
287
development intervention appears to have had a positive influence on instructors’ preparations and overall
confidence when it came to teaching online if not the actual creation of video content in the face of the
pandemic. It is likely that non-linguistic semiotic resources, especially video, indicate, contribute to the
establishment of, or help to maintain multiple presences simultaneously. This is not necessarily true of the
linguistic indicators of, for example, teaching presence developed by Shea et al. (2010) where the
possibilities for indicators to be connected to more than one presence were not explored (RQ2).
The categories of non-linguistic semiotic resources identified in this study are appropriate for the
identification and enumeration of resources in different OLEs and for describing non-linguistic semiotic
resources in the context of professional development and research. Again, the context of this study means
the semiotic resources are discussed in terms of their status as the basic communicative building blocks in
the OLE and are chosen for their relevance, usability, and the likelihood that they make up the minimum
(and sometimes, the maximum) resources available to an instructor (RQ1).
The CoI survey consistently elicited the same kinds of responses from the two cohorts of students,
who completed the survey almost a year apart (RQ1). Interestingly, responses to social presence are lower
than the other two presences in the two stages of this study; but similar results are found in Diaz et al. (2010)
and this is consistent with Boston et al. (2019) who also report lower social presence mean scores derived
from the administration of the CoI survey to approximately 28,000 students (RQ2).
In the next chapter, I consider these findings and describe what implications for the practice of
OTL they have for online instructors and students. I also address the limitations of the study and suggest
some avenues for further research.
288
Chapter 11 – Implications, Limitations and Future Research
The study reported in this thesis is the first to integrate multimodal social semiotic perspective with
the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000) and examine how instructors exploit
semiotic resources in their online learning environment (OLE). The study is also the first to consider the
ability of non-linguistic semiotic resources to contribute to teaching, social, and cognitive presence in
online teaching and learning (OTL). The study includes surveys of practice conducted before and after a
professional development intervention delivered to a cohort of online TESOL instructors. The intervention
was evaluated for its impact on instructors’ use of non-linguistic semiotic resources and whether changes
in the design of their OLEs between the two surveys of practice could be observed. Surveys of practice
encompassed a content analysis of each OLE, semi-structured interviews with instructors, and the CoI
survey instrument administered to students measure students’ perceptions of the levels of the three CoI
presences. My study thus focuses on practice, i.e., examining how the semiotic resources available to
instructors via a learning management system (LMS) and those they import from outside (e.g., photos,
video), are used to create a community of inquiry.
This final chapter describes the key practice-oriented findings to emerge from the study. I also
consider the implications of these outcomes for practitioners and researchers in teacher education in TESOL.
As noted above, the TESOL context explored here was chosen in response to a perceived gap in the
literature, my familiarity with the discipline, convenience, the potential to aid practitioners, and because
TESOL has a rich research tradition examining computer mediated communication (CMC) and computer
assisted language learning (CALL) reported in the literature over five decades. However, there is potential
for these findings to be applied to practice in any number of other disciplines engaged in online teaching.
11.1. Key Findings
The mixed methods approach adopted here has been critical in ascertaining the influences on the
OLE and interpreting what happens in an OLE. Mixed methods has also given a voice to the study’s
participants. This approach has allowed instructor-participants to articulate their thinking and share their
experiences, which remains a key motivation for undertaking the study. While I haven’t necessarily been
able to draw on statistics to give weight to findings that rely on frequency, the use of semi-structured
interviews alongside qualitative content analyses and quantitative survey responses means that, incremental
shifts in the number of resources in OLEs and mean scores of teaching, social, and cognitive presence are
corroborated by the voice of the instructors or the responses of the students to the survey.
The design of the study has resulted in several significant outcomes. I have developed and tested a
typology of semiotic resources present in an OLE based on Kress and van Leeuwen (1996), Stöckl (2005),
and a theoretical perspective that integrates multimodal social semiotics and the CoI framework. I have
also been able to take initial steps in identifying and categorising semiotic resources that contribute to the
establishment or maintenance of teaching, social, and cognitive presences. Additionally, I have designed,
289
developed, and tested a functional professional development intervention that supports instructors in their
online practice. Three key findings have emerged from the study. First, written language is a prominent
resource exploited in the OLE. Second, semiotic resources can contribute to multiple presences
simultaneously. Third, UI/design or layout plays an important role in establishing teaching and social
presence. Finally, this study makes a series of contributions to teacher education in TESOL, through the
development and delivery of the intervention the CoI framework, through the development of a modified
survey instrument and indicators of presence based on non-linguistic semiotic resources and the field of
multimodal social semiotics, through the novel examination of a TESOL context through a multimodal lens.
The outcomes, findings, and contributions described in this chapter have implications beyond the
immediate context of TESOL and should be of interest to practitioners and researchers in any number of
disciplines engaged in OTL.
11.1.1. Written language is a Prominent Resource Exploited by Instructors
One of the assumptions underpinning multimodal social semiotics is that analysis focusing solely
on language cannot adequately account for meaning (see §3.1). It sometimes appears as if language and
non-linguistic semiotic resources represent equal parts of a text. This is not the case in the six OLEs
examined in this study. Written language was observed in all six OLEs and, through instructors’ reliance
on typography, revealed as occupying a significant, and possibly still central role in OTL.
I also conducted and thematically analysed semi-structured interviews and developed a qualitative
account of instructors’ experiences and reflections on their use of semiotic resources. The role of written
language was not specifically canvased in the interview questions, but several instructors highlighted the
efficacy of using typography to give emphasis to information presented in the OLE. Students in both pre-
and post-intervention stages of the study shared the perception that written language contributes to teaching
and cognitive presence and even more to social presence. This perception may reflect the centrality of
language as a means of communication in the OLE in general and in posts and comments in discussion
forums. With written language continuing to be central to conveying meaning within the OLE, practitioners
will need to consider how they are employing typography given its ability to contribute to and extend
meaning
11.1.2. Semiotic Resources
Another key finding is that non-linguistic semiotic resources can contribute to multiple CoI
presences, sometimes simultaneously. The impact a semiotic resource has on a presence is dependent on
the way students perceive it, the learning outcomes associated with its use and the instructor’s
understanding of how the resource functions within the OLE. This is analogous to the way in which
language is implied to indicate teaching, social, and cognitive presence (Rourke et al., 2001; Shea et al.,
2010; Swan and Shih, 2005, see Appendix B). Language-based indicators of presence tend to be limited in
their focus to one or another type of presence. Instead, “function”, a concept that emerged out of discussions
with instructors, allows us to consider how a semiotic resource is working in the OLE vis-à-vis desired
290
learning outcomes and when a resource is contributing to more than one presence at a time. "Function” as
a concept is easily operationalised for professional development among TESOL instructors, aiding in their
multimodal understanding of teaching, social, and cognitive presence. Like the instructors who participated
in this study, anyone engaged in OTL could find professional development in utilising non-linguistic
semiotic resources in the OLE beneficial. However, the examination of non-linguistic semiotic resources
as indicators of teaching, social, and cognitive presence must continue beyond the study described in this
thesis.
This study has contributed to an expanded understanding of how different semiotic
resources can indicate teaching, social, and cognitive presence in the OLE. Both linguistic and non-
linguistic resources have the potential to contribute to any one of the CoI presences as well as to
simultaneously indicate multiple presences. Previously, indicators of presence have focused on examples
illustrating one action (usually something an instructor says or writes) as an indicator of one presence. By
contrast, this study has provided evidence that one action can address multiple presences – for example,
employing a video to help students understand assessment requirements indicates not only teaching
presence (direct instruction) but also social presence (open communication) and cognitive presence, as it
could shape students’ understanding as they traverse the exploration and integration phases of the Practical
Inquiry Model (PIM) (see §10.1.3.). By demonstrating that semiotic resources can influence multiple
presences simultaneously, this study may constitute the start of a resurgence in more qualitative and mixed
methods research into the CoI. This kind of qualitative research would see a return to the kind of content
analyses surpassed by quantitative research using the CoI survey instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008) to some
extent since 2008.
11.1.3. Layout
Students’ responses to the CoI surveys in this study indicated they perceived layout as contributing
to teaching and social presences. This perception seems reasonable because layout, and UI/design is
perhaps the most prevalent semiotic resource encountered by users, encompassing most parts of the OLE.
Instructors in this study cited their inability to customise the OLE as one of the frustrations they face when
teaching online. Institutions and the bodies administering learning platforms often “lock down” LMSs in
the service of security, branding, and other operational concerns. This makes customisation of an OLE and
its layout impossible, or at least very difficult. For instructors however, the “locking down” of an LMS
needs to be weighed against the needs of instructors and their students.
One of the more poignant ideas to come out of the semi-structured interviews in the pre-
intervention stage of the study was that instructors do not have the same sorts of restrictions placed on them
when using a physical classroom space. In Kress et al. (2005), the physical classroom is a sign that reflects
the meanings of those who make the sign (Kress et al., 2005 p. 22). The classroom reflects a teacher’s
notions of pedagogy, and the role of English (e.g., teacher Lizzy in Kress et al., 2005, p. 61). In the same
way, adopting, and building on Kress et al. (2005), the OLE is a reflection of an instructor’s values and
beliefs in the pedagogy, TESOL methods, the role of English globally, and the position of English teachers
291
in societies. In an LMS that is locked down, instructors are not always able to express these meanings.
While Bateman (2008) might consider this a canvas constraint (see §3.5.3.2), it is an artificial one, imposed
on instructors mostly arbitrarily.
11.1.4. The Modified Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument
The modified CoI survey instrument created for this study (see §5.5.7., Table 5.2) is an example of
how the integration of the CoI and multimodal social semiotics can be operationalised. While future
research will need to focus on validating the additions to the survey and making sure that the survey
instrument remains a reliable measure of teaching, social, and cognitive presence, the modified survey
yielded responses that were both consistent with the responses it was seeking to elicit from students and
did so with two different groups of students almost 12 months apart at three institutions and in two countries.
Therefore, further preliminary use of the modified survey seems appropriate while research focused on its
validity and reliability is undertaken in the future.
Qualitative content analysis and the use of a quantitative survey instrument seem to be a sound
basis for the design of mixed methods research examining OTL. The use of a mixed methods approach
here, for example, allowed me to create a reasonably in-depth account of the practices and perspectives of
instructors, the perceptions of students, and the multimodal design of OLEs despite the relatively small
sample size, and to uncover information about the contexts in which online teacher education in TESOL is
occurring – in two different countries, with diverse cohorts of students made up of pre- and in-service
teachers who are a combination of native and non-native speakers of English.
11.1.5. Professional Development
The present study also provided an example of a functional approach to professional development
for TESOL instructors that introduces the CoI as a frame for considering whether and how OTL
incorporates a distinct set of semiotic resources. The professional development intervention brought
together a group of globally distributed and experienced TESOL instructors and was created to be
independent of traditional LMSs such as Moodle. Thus, it can be implemented in any platform that adheres
to HTML5 web standards in the future. Consisting of 4–5 hours of asynchronous instruction, the frame and
structure of the professional development intervention considers the existing intuitive knowledge of
instructors about the semiotic resources they are already using and have awareness of. The modified CoI
survey administered to the instructor-participants showed the intervention had high levels of teaching and
cognitive presence, and reasonably high levels of social presence. The level of social presence appears to
reflect much freer opportunities for commenting compared to other LMSs like Moodle and Google
Classroom. As such, the professional development intervention was able to establish a community of
inquiry wherein the participants were able to think critically about their past or current practice and plan
changes for their future practice.
292
11.2. Outcomes
11.2.1 Multimodal outcomes
This study expands multimodal social semiotics research in a number of directions. First, I have
examined teacher education in TESOL, a context that has received very little attention in research on
multimodality even though, as this study has shown, it offers a fertile ground for examining teaching and
learning as a complex multimodal communication practice. Second, employing mixed methods while
assuming a multimodal social semiotic perspective to create a survey of practice is an approach not seen in
the social semiotic literature to date. Third, this study makes important contributions to multimodal social
semiotics, consistent with the aims espoused by van Leeuwen (2005):
• The study systematically identified and enumerated a specific set of semiotic resources that are
the basic building blocks of OLEs (see §10.1) and documented their use by TESOL instructors.
To achieve this, I combined content analysis of OLEs with a broader survey of practice before
and after the professional development intervention. This unique approach constitutes a
methodological contribution to social semiotic research on multimodality. The survey of practice
also allowed me to elaborate on the “history” of those non-linguistic semiotic resources (van
Leeuwen, 2005, p. 3), used by instructors and their reasons behind using certain semiotic
resources over others.
• In addition to the content analysis, semi-structured interviews and the CoI survey formed part of
the surveys of practice and have worked to reveal how instructors exploit semiotic resources in
their OLEs to communicate content and model teacher behaviour. Interviews offered insight and
helped to confirm how semiotic resources are exploited in the OLE and how use is influenced by
the socio-cultural context in which resources are used (including the influence of the COVID-19
pandemic). Use of resources is also influenced by awareness of the needs of students (i.e., the
audience) and conceptions of epistemologies relevant to language teaching (e.g., social
constructivism, behaviourism, cognitivism, and connectivism). Finally, institutional factors such
as the choice of LMS default settings and the practice of “locking down” an LMS, limiting the
resources available to instructors for designing their OLEs.
• From a theoretical standpoint, the present study has shown the potential for the integration of
multimodal social semiotic approaches with the CoI framework. The categorisation of semiotic
resources by the function they fulfil in the OLE is particularly important for considering the role
semiotic resources play in establishing and maintaining teaching, social, and cognitive presence.
This constitutes a novel means by which semiotic resources can be studied that has not been
pursued in previous research.
293
11.2.2. Community of Inquiry Outcomes
Maybe reflective practices offer us a way of trying to make sense of the uncertainty in our
workplaces and the courage to work competently and ethically at the edge of order and
chaos…
(Ghaye, 2000, p.7)
“[A]t the edge of order and chaos” could be a useful way of describing teaching practice in the
2020-2021 period. While crises like the COVID-19 pandemic tend to be catalysts for change – such as
moving entire teacher preparation courses to fully online delivery the means by which we reflect on practice
in OTL, and how institutions evaluate the “success” of online teaching, are still largely based on the
approaches taken to reflect on, and evaluate, face-to-face instruction.
This study contributes a potentially new and unique means for approaching reflective practice and
evaluation of online teacher education in TESOL leading to improved practice in OTL. The CoI survey
used in the study can be administered to students and interpreted using either the CoI presences, an
individual presence, or one of the presence subcategories as a starting point. Instructors could consider the
mean scores for a presence or presence subcategory and seek to improve the ways in which non-linguistic
semiotic resources are employed in their OLE. The multimodal CoI survey also allows us to consider which
resources students perceived as contributing to one or more presences or subcategories and whether these
perceptions match an instructor’s intended outcomes (and therefore the choice to use those resources).
While the CoI survey has the potential to serve as another tool instructors employ as part of
reflective practice and continued professional development, administering and analysing the results of the
CoI survey takes time and may not be appropriate with smaller groups of students. Finally, the CoI survey
also serves as the basis for institutions to obtain numeric data on the effectiveness of teaching while
evaluating online instruction in a way that is both balanced and elicits specific, on-topic information from
students (cf. Arthur, 2019). In turn, the survey responses provide feedback that instructors can act upon.
In addition to the suggestions for research explored below, the use of the CoI survey explicitly for
reflective practice could be further explored using a number of mixed methods approaches in different
contexts. Ethnographic examinations of reflective practice undertaken by instructors engaging with each
other in communities of practice, action research encompassing pre/post testing (administering the survey
twice), and using a self-study approach focusing on the knowledge construction of the “practitioner-
researcher” (e.g., Capobianco, 2007; Schulman, 2004), or the examination of how beliefs about pedagogy
make one “sensitive to acting in an educative manner in context” which is a prompt that is often found in
the academic and professional literature around self-study and reflective practice (e.g., Manen, 1991, p.
72).
11.2.3. TESOL Outcomes
The design, development, and delivery of the professional development intervention described in
this study contributes to how we approach semiotic resources in teacher education in TESOL and builds on
294
the efforts of Choi and Yi (2015), Yi and Angay-Crowder (2016), So et al. (2019) and Li (2020) in
attempting to make professional development in multimodality both relevant and engaging for instructors
and teachers at all levels.
As a TESOL instructor, I would be remiss not to reflect on my own practice in the OTL in TESOL
professional development intervention. the opportunity to examine my own practice was an outcome of this
study - one that I did not initially consider, but one that I am equally grateful for in that it serves as another
measure of the success of the intervention. The results of the CoI survey administered to participants (see
Appendix E) and the mean scores for items related to teaching, social, cognitive presence provide an
opportunity to examine participant perception of the intervention delivery. By way of example, Figures
10.4a and 10.4b show the results of the CoI survey.
Figure 11.1a Community of Inquiry Presences – OTL in TESOL
Figure 11.1b Community of Inquiry Subcategories – OTL in TESOL
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Teaching Presence
Social PresenceCognitive Presence
OTL in TESOL
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Design & Organisation
Discourse Facilitatiom
Direct Insrtuction
Open Communication
Affective Communication
Group Cohesion
TrigEx
IntRes
OTL in TESOL
295
Responses indicate that social presence received lower mean scores compared to the other
presences (Figure 10.4a). Furthermore, we can see that the mean scores for affective communication and
group cohesion were lower than for open communication (Figure 10.5b). In semi-structured interviews,
instructors suggested that social presence was a significant part of and takeaway from the professional
development intervention. In comparing their experiences in the pre- and post-intervention stages of the
study, Chloe (Class F) noted having attained a “human moment” where they felt comfortable portraying
themselves as “real” and that this would have a positive impact on social presence in the OLE.
Nevertheless, taking these results into account, along with the lower mean score for discourse
facilitation, it becomes clear that, overall, participants felt there could have been a different approach to
how I communicated in the OLE and how I facilitated or scaffolded their communications with each other.
If I was reflecting on these results in respect to my ongoing practice, I would consider adding a more
focused and specific “getting to know each other” kind of task at the beginning of the course thus setting
expectations and clearly modelling the kinds of communication expected in the course. Further reflection
might prompt me to think about the kinds of semiotic resources employed in the OLE, especially those
focused on discussion. I might also reflect on whether language-based discussion in forums is appropriate
for these learners, their context, and whether the stated learning outcomes are being met or could these be
supplemented by participants using video or audio in responses to discussion and potentially increasing
affective communication (social presence).
11.3 Limitations
While there are several important implications emerging from this PhD study, some limitations in
the design and methodology that have impacted the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data need to
be acknowledged. In this section, I also propose how future studies can overcome these limitations and
build on the outcomes of this project.
11.3.1. Validity and Reliability
As changes in teaching and learning in higher education make it difficult to evaluate the impact of
the intervention beyond this study, it is important to discuss my efforts to maintain validity and reliability.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this study was considerable and resulted in changes to the
intervention, participant attrition, and disruptions to participants’ teaching schedules affecting availability.
As a result, I had to take various steps to address and mitigate the threats these changes posed to the validity
and reliability of the present study.
11.3.1.1. Validity
The pandemic presented a threat to the internal validity of the study and is an example of an
independent variable, outside of this study, with the potential to negatively impact the study’s validity.
During the intervention and post-intervention stages, instructor-participants were mostly teaching from
home, and some had to also home-school their children during lockdowns or isolation periods. The
increased use of video in OLEs in the post-intervention stage is thus likely prompted by these changes more
296
or rather than the instructors’ engagement with the professional development intervention in this study.
However, as instructors suggested in their interviews, the invention may have contributed to instructors
feeling more prepared to use video purposefully, with a foundational knowledge of how it and other
semiotic resources could shape the CoI.
Including data from two classes (Class A & B) taught by the same instructor-participant also had
the potential to threaten validity. Rather than providing more data to analyse in relation to the exploitation
of semiotic resources in the OLE, Class A & B represent a duplication of data to some extent. This is
evidenced by very similar frequencies in the use of some, but not all, of the semiotic resources in their
OLEs. Changes in the type and frequency of semiotic resources employed by Michelle in her OLEs were
observed, but as noted in Chapter 10, for some of the resources, this was the result of an update to the LMS.
Nevertheless, the qualitative data gathered from examining these OLEs and from Michelle herself were
very valuable. Importantly, the students in Class A & B were different in both the pre-intervention and
post-intervention stages of the study. The validity of quantitative data gathered via the CoI survey
instrument is thus less of a concern. Ultimately, Michelle’s case is not unique among instructors who often
teach multiple instances of the same subject in the same or across different teaching sessions.
External validity in this study concerns the extent to which its findings apply beyond the group of
instructors and students who participated to online teacher education in TESOL in general. Primarily, and
because of the sample size and sampling method, generalisability is limited (cf. §11.3.3. below).
11.3.1.2. Reliability
To account for internal reliability and avoid introducing confounding variables into the study, all
student-participants received access to the CoI survey at the same time via their OLEs. Cronbach’s Alpha
was used to check internal reliability as well and revealed a coefficient of .92 (excellent internal reliability
or “consistency”), demonstrating that individual items within the CoI survey are likely to produce the same
results if administered to other students under the same conditions. In addition, the research design meant
that a test/re-test approach towards external reliability was built into the study to some extent with the CoI
survey being administered three times over a 12-month period to two different cohorts of students as well
as to the instructors participating in the professional development intervention. Finally, in terms of
reliability, the use of the CoI survey in this study is consistent with the levels of reliability in studies reported
in the literature (see §2.4.). The relatively small sample size used in the study does not seem to have a
negative impact on internal reliability, with the CoI survey instrument yielding similar results in each of
the six classes in both the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study.
11.3.2. Participant Attrition
Participant attrition was another considerable threat to internal validity. Two instructor-participants
withdrew from the study after completing the professional development course, for reasons related to the
pandemic while two instructor-participants joined the study beginning by undertaking the professional
development intervention. This means that for instructors Tayla (Class C) and Sam (Class E) the outcomes
297
of the intervention remain unknown given they were not interviewed in the post-intervention stage of the
study. New instructor-participants, Ava (Class C) and Zoe (Class E), began their participation in the study
by undertaking the professional development intervention.
Attrition is undesirable, yet often unavoidable. As mentioned in §9.1., from time to time, instructors
may inherit an OLE with very little time before they must start to use it. This was the case here, and it is
reasonable to assume that changes to the OLEs of Classes E and C were few, except for those prompted by
the new instructors’ participation in the intervention.
Overall, there are few changes in the use of semiotic resources in the Class C and Class E OLEs
between the pre- and post-intervention stages of the study. Typography remained the most frequent semiotic
resource observed in both OLEs despite the change in instructors. In Class C, hyperlinks continued to link
to internal pages more than external ones under Ava, as they had under Tayla (see §9.2.3.). While the
increase in icon use in Class C can be attributed to an update to the LMS rather than the choices made by
Ava. Likewise, Class E remained relatively unchanged for example, the frequency of indented typography
resources e.g., ordered and unordered lists, remained similar. In the pre-intervention stage 44 indented
resources were observed in Class E when Sam was the instructor, and 38 under Zoe (see §9.2.5.).
11.3.3. Sampling
The convenience sampling approach used to recruit instructors (and subsequently their students) is
appropriate given that online teacher education in TESOL is only becoming more widespread as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, this study takes a mixed methods approach relying on the interpretation
of qualitative data, in addition to quantitative data. With seven instructor-participants and 121 student
participants, this study is relatively small, especially when compared to studies on the CoI reported in the
literature (e.g., Arbaugh (2008) encompassed 17 instructors and 656 students. The aim was to achieve depth
at the expense of breadth and generalisability. Any future study that replicates this one and seeks a larger
sample size will also need to consider employing appropriate sampling strategies. Employing a stratified
sampling strategy for both instructor and student participants would help to ensure a sample more
representative of the wider population. A stratified sample would also support internal validity overall.
Furthermore, a larger sample would also enable a wider-ranging statistical analysis and comparison of the
results of the CoI survey instrument. While the mean scores presented in this study are a generally stable
measure, mostly appropriate for a small sample size, means are adversely affected by extreme values. A
larger, stratified sample could provide for further comparison of different instructors, OLEs, and students
which was limited in the present study because of the threat to participant anonymity. Sampling by gender,
age, location, and mode of delivery (fully online or blended) would seem logical points of comparison to
make with a larger, stratified sample.
298
11.3.4. Generalisability
Primarily, and because of the sample size and sampling method, the generalisability of the findings
of this study are limited. Nevertheless, as products of a mixed methods study, the findings described here
are an accurate account of the experiences of the seven instructors who participated and of the changes that
occurred in their OLEs between the pre- intervention to the post-intervention stages of the study. As such
the results can be relevant to similar populations teaching under similar circumstances. As suggested above,
there is also the potential for certain findings and outcomes, such as the prevalence of written language in
the OLE and the modified CoI survey instrument, to have application in other disciplines where instructors
are engaging in OTL. In addition to the opportunities discussed in the next section, future research
replicating the design detailed in §5.3 and incorporating pre- and post-intervention surveys of practice, in
disciplines other than teacher education in TESOL will be useful in confirming and expanding the
generalisability of the findings of this study.
11.4. Future Research
This study could be viewed as a useful start for examinations into the effects of semiotic resources
on CoI presences and how they are used in OLEs, but there are numerous points outlined here –
methodological, theoretical, and practical – that could be pursued further in future research.
11.4.1. The Need for Online Teaching & Learning in Teacher Preparation
The curriculum used in the kinds of teacher education in TESOL programs delivered at Australian
and Korean universities included in this study still lack subjects or units that deal specifically with the
training of teachers to deliver instruction online. This study supports calls in the literature for teacher
education in TESOL programs to include more training in OTL, computer assisted language learning
(CALL) (e.g., Hubbard, 2021) and fundamental UI/design principles. It is telling that instructor Chloe
(Class E) one of the most experienced instructors in the study, also noted the lack of an OTL component in
their subject (see §9.5.5.3., Table 9.13), but could not foresee a solution to the challenge of including it in
the face of an already intensive curriculum. Future research into OTL-focused additions to teacher
preparation in TESOL must address the fundamentals of UI/design and layout. Furthermore, the need for
the inclusion of OTL in teacher preparation goes beyond TESOL and is applicable to any discipline teaching
students online.
UI/design and the overall layout of online texts (e.g., websites) attract considerable and
constant research and testing in both the public and private sectors. The challenge facing
researchers examining UI/design and layout in educational contexts is one that will require
abandoning preconceptions of what is “required” in an LMS and adopting UI/design and layout
principles and practices prevalent in industry. This may include, but is not limited to, the
examination of the efficacy of agile development processes (e.g., Øvad et al., 2015) and taking an
overall user experience (UX) approach to the development of the LMS and other tools that an OLE
299
is built upon and uses. This may seem controversial or antithetical to the educational context
discussed here. However, if we consider our understanding of medium and site of display (see
§3.4.3.2.) and concepts such as “you-are-here” navigation (§8.3.3.), a layout or UI/design
experience equal to what students experience outside of educational contexts seems to be an
appropriate goal for UI/design in OTL. Such a shift must encompass lo-fi prototyping with
instructors (paper-based sketch design), usability testing with both instructors and students,
holding workshops and focus groups with instructors and students, and developing so-called
personas or user profiles that are realistic reflections of instructors and students in the 21st century
(e.g., Nugraha and Fatwanto, 2021) to inform design. These new approaches must then be distilled
into programs that address the needs of pre- and in-service teachers as the professional
development intervention described in this study did in relation to some of the more discrete
semiotic resources available to instructors.
11.4.2. Towards a Multimodal Pedagogy
A final implication of this study is found in the questions it has revealed about the nature of
multimodal pedagogy in teacher education in TESOL. This is an area requiring more research both from a
TESOL point of view and from a social semiotics perspective. Numerous studies have reported on
multimodal pedagogy in the teacher education in TESOL literature over the past decade. However, a clear
picture of exactly what multimodal pedagogy for teacher education in TESOL “is” has yet to come into
focus. The evidence for this assertion is found in the focus in the literature on tasks with multimodal
outcomes or products (e.g., Choi & Yi, 2015). Studies have reported on outcomes such as engagement with
content for pre- and in-service teachers (e.g., Li, 2020), the use of video in reading comprehension (e.g.,
Saedi & Ahmadi, 2016; Shih, 1992), the relationship between images and written language in developing
receptive (reading) skills (e.g., Bilki & Plakans, 2022; Liu, 2004; Richards, 2000), and the relationship
between the visual and verbal in developing learner comprehension (e.g., Royce, 2002; 2007).
From a TESOL perspective these examples of production are useful, providing observable evidence
of the fulfilment of learning outcomes but the implementation of tasks resulting in multimodal products is
not a formalised pedagogy. A subsequent issue facing pedagogues is the conflation of multiliteracies
(competency in the critical reading, interpretation, and creation of multimodal texts) with multimodal
pedagogy (the study of the method and practice of teaching) (see §3.7.2.1). Each informs the other, but to
what extent and how remains a nascent area of investigation in the literature. Multimodal pedagogy is likely
subject-specific, meaning the way forward for researchers is not a one-size-fits-all approach but rather one
that draws on the same underlying theory tailored to existing practice when applied to different
fields. Future research must aid practitioners, and other researchers, by outlining an overarching
epistemology suitable for the description and organisation of knowledge in a multimodal pedagogy. It may
be that the social constructivist-behavioural-connectivist-cognitivist approach described in Chapter 4
requires refining for example.
300
The claim that a multimodal pedagogy is underdeveloped is significant. However, for instructors
to be able to exploit semiotic resources in the service of increasing teaching, social, and cognitive presence
in their OLEs, and for professional development to effectively address the use of semiotic resources, the
fundamental pedagogical underpinning to what we are doing in online teacher education in TESOL and the
benefits of multimodal approaches need to be identified and codified, especially if we are to increase the
amount of time dedicated to OTL in teacher preparation programs. Having conceptualised a multimodal
pedagogy, teacher preparation for OTL will need to integrate both key TESOL concepts, helping build pre-
and in-service teacher’s content knowledge, and multimodal concepts, helping to build pre- and in-service
teachers’ understanding of multimodality, how it can be used to teach language and the impact different
semiotic resources have on CoI presences (when teaching online).
11.6. Conclusion
The study reported in this thesis represents an exploration of OTL practice among a cohort of
TESOL instructors with the aim of understanding how the CoI and multimodal social semiotics manifest
in OTL. While a contribution to the theory that underpins these two approaches may be an outcome of this
study, the core focus has been on how TESOL instructors, the practitioners embodied by the instructor-
participants described in this study, understand, and ultimately exploit semiotic resources in their OLEs to
the benefit of increased teaching, social, and cognitive presence. The rationale for the study stemmed from
the idea that examining our online practice through language alone does not provide a full account of the
semiotically diverse interactions taking place in the OLE. Moreover, by only using language to
communicate subject content in the OLE, we are missing opportunities to model TESOL concepts to
students more fully and more authentically while professional development targeting instructor
understanding of multimodality and the CoI will have a positive impact on practice.
What has been revealed in this study (or perhaps confirmed), is that TESOL instructors must fulfil
multiple roles in the OLE simultaneously: a pedagogical role (selecting content, creating assessments and
selecting tasks), a teacher trainer role (modelling appropriate language teaching practices and behaviours
that engender better decisions by pre- and in-service teachers in their own, future, classrooms (cf. Goodwin
et al., 2014; Middleton & Baartman, 2013; Rubadeau, 2018), and the role of the educational
designer/technologist, designing, and developing an OLE, maximising the effective use of the medium, not
only in delivering content, but in a way that engenders effective use by their students as well. While these
three roles are important and complementary, at present, too few resources are dedicated to helping
instructors in their role as educational developers/technologists, thereby preventing instructors from
realising the full potential of OTL and the benefits of exploiting the semiotic resources they have available
to them in establishing and maintaining a community of inquiry.
The intervention reported here is a small step towards providing instructors with knowledge for
using semiotic resources in their OLEs. The success of the intervention may be small when viewed
quantitatively but qualitative comments from instructors show an overall positive view towards the concept
of the CoI framework and the use of semiotic resources in the OLE to support the building a community of
301
inquiry with their students. Moreover, there were perceptible shifts in the number and types of resources
observed in the OLEs in the post-intervention stage despite the pandemic and institutional imperatives
colouring students’ perceptions of video as being the most important contributor to teaching, social, and
cognitive presence in the post-intervention stage.
Finally, the novel means for examining OTL discussed in this thesis, underpinned by a theoretical
framework that integrates multimodal social semiotics and the CoI, is an exciting prospect for researchers
and practitioners of online teaching because it was developed in and reflects a period that saw a profound
shift towards OTL in higher education. New ways of examining practice in online teaching need to be
forged but should serve the practitioner first. The potential for the modified CoI survey to inform reflective
practice (in addition to institutional evaluation) will require further investigation but combined with
professional development of the type described here, promises to be a useful tool for online instructors in
TESOL and other disciplines engaged in online teaching and learning.
302
Bibliography
Abbitt, J. T., & Boone, W. J. (2021). Gaining insight from survey data: an analysis of the community of
inquiry survey using Rasch measurement techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
33. 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09268-6.
Adami, E. (2017). Multimodality. In O. García, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Language and Society (pp. 451-472). Oxford University Press.
Aiello, G. (2020). Visual semiotics: Key concepts and new directions. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.)
The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 367-380). Sage.
Agnostini, M. (2007) Généalogie du concept de «communauté de recherche», DIOTIME, 33. 15-29.
Agudo, J. D. D. M., & Azzaro, G. (2018). Emotions in learning to teach EFL in the practicum setting:
Facing the emotional dilemmas and challenges associated with professional practice. In J. D. D.
M. Agudo (Ed.), Emotions in Second Language Teaching Theory, Research and Teacher
Education (pp. 365-384). Springer.
Ahuvia, A. (2001) Traditional, interpretive, and reception-based content analyses: improving the ability of
content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators
Research 54, 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011087813505.
Airey, J. (2015, November 3-5). Social semiotics in higher education: Examples from teaching and
learning in undergraduate physics. [Presentation]. Singapore-Sweden Excellence Seminars,
Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research in Higher Education (STINT).
Airey, J., & Eriksson, U. (2019). Unpacking the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram: A social semiotic analysis
of the disciplinary and pedagogical affordances of a central resource in astronomy. Designs for
Learning, 11(1), 99-107.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2017). Social semiotics in university physics education. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit,
and H. E. Fischer (Eds.) Multiple Representations in Physics Education (pp. 95-122). Springer.
Ajibade, P. (2018). Technology acceptance model limitations and criticisms: Exploring the practical
applications and use in technology-related studies, mixed-method, and qualitative research.
Library Philosophy and Practice [e-journal]. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1941.
Akbana, Y. E., & Dikilitaş, K. (2022). EFL Teachers’ Sources of Remote Teaching Anxiety: Insights and
Implications for EFL Teacher Education. Acta Educationis Generalis, 12(1), 157-180.
Akyol, Z. (2012). Metacognitive development within the community of inquiry. In Z. Akyol & D. R.
Garrison (Eds.), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and
Practice. (pp. 30-44). IGI Global.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online
course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive, and teaching presence.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 3-22.
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The
Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190.
Alexander, K. P., Powell, B., & Green, S. C. (2011). Understanding modal affordances: Student perceptions
of potentials and limitations in multimodal composition. Basic Writing eJournal, 10(11.1).
Almuhaimeed, S. A. (2022). Research Trends in ESL/EFL: A systematic investigation of studies in ELT
Journal and TESOL Quarterly. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(Special issue 2),
918-934.
al Mahmud, A. (2013). Constructivism and reflectivism as the logical counterparts in TESOL: Learning
theory versus teaching methodology. TEFLIN journal, 24(2), 237-257.
Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning
environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148.
303
Alshwaikh, J. (2018). Diagrams as communication in mathematics discourse: A social semiotic account.
For the Learning of Mathematics, 38(2), 9-13.
Altarriba, J., & Knickerbocker, (2011). Acquiring second language vocabulary through the use of images
and words. Applying priming methods to L2 learning. In K. McDonough and P. Trofimovich
(Eds.) Applying Priming Methods to L2 Learning, Teaching and Research. (pp. 21-48) John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Amemado, D., & Manca, S. (2017). Learning from decades of online distance education: MOOCs and the
Community of Inquiry Framework. Journal of e-learning and Knowledge Society, 13(2), 1-8.
Andersen, T., Boeriis, M., Maagerø, E., & Tønnessen, E. S. (2015). Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New
Directions. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer
conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teaching presence in a
Computer Conference Environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing universities for the information age. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(3), https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i3.372.
Annand, D. (2019). Limitations of the Community of Inquiry Framework. International Journal of E-
Learning & Distance Education, 34(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1242715.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual Classroom Characteristics and Student Satisfaction with Internet-Based
MBA Courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1) 32-54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290002400104.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005a). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses?. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 4(2), 135-149.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005b). How much does “subject matter” matter? A study of disciplinary effects in on-line
MBA courses. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 57-73.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73-85.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008a). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA
courses? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–21.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2013). Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course outcomes relationships in online
MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Learning 17, 16-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.002.
Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of
Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 37-
44.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P.
(2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of
inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-
4), 133-136.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and Structural Characteristics, Student Learning and
Satisfaction with Web-Based Courses: An Exploratory Study of Two On-Line MBA Programs.
Management Learning, 33(3), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507602333003
Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses?. The Internet
and Higher Education, 9(1), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.12.001.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Rau, B. L. (2007). A study of disciplinary, structural, and behavioral effects on course
outcomes in online MBA courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 65-
95.
304
Arcagok, S., & Yılmaz, C. (2020). Intercultural sensitivities: A mixed methods study with pre-service EFL
teachers in Turkey. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 1-18.
Arnott, L., Palaiologou, I., Gray, C., & Yelland, N. J. (2018). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children
and multimodal learning with tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 847-858.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12635.
Artigue, M., Bottino, R. M., Cerulli, M., Georget, J. P., Maffei, L., Maracci, M., Mariotti, A., Pedemonte,
B., Robotti, E. & Trgalova, J. (2007). Technology Enhanced Learning in Mathematics; The cross-
experimentation approach adopted by the TELMA European research team. La Matematica e la
sua Didattica, 21(1), 67-74.
Ates, B., Kim, S., & Uzum, B. (2021). Can Theory Meet Practice in Online Master's TESOL Programs?
Reflections from Program Graduates. CATESOL Journal, 32(1), 126-132.
Atkin, A. (2010). Peirce’s Theory of Signs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2013 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/peirce-semiotics
Azzaro, G., & Agudo, J. D. D. M. (2018). The emotions involved in the integration of ICT into L2 teaching:
Emotional challenges faced by L2 teachers and implications for teacher education. In J. D. D. M.
Agudo (Ed.), Emotions in Second Language Teaching Theory, Research and Teacher Education
(pp. 183-203). Springer, Cham.
Australian Qualifications Framework Council, (2013). The Australian Qualifications Framework (2nd ed.).
Australian Qualifications Framework Council. https://www.aqf.edu.au/sites/aqf/files/aqf-2nd-
edition-january-2013.pdf
Babich, N. (2019, October 7). The 4 Golden Rules of UI Design. Adobe Corporation.
https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/process/ui-design/4-golden-rules-ui-design/.
Balasubramanian, K., Jaykumar, V. B., and Fukey, L. N. (2014). A study on Student preference towards
the use of Edmodo as a learning platform to create responsible learning environment. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences 144, 416-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.311
Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit
and Coursebook. Equinox.
Ballard, S., Stapleton, J., & Carroll, E. (2004). Students’ perceptions of course web sites used in face-to-
face instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(3), 197-211.
Bangert, A.W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. The
Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 104-111. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/105518/.
Baran, E., & Al Zoubi, D. (2020). Affordances, challenges, and impact of open pedagogy: Examining
students’ voices. Distance Education, 41(2), 230-244.Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity
argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education,
12(2), 104-111.
Barthes, R. (1964). Éléments de sémiologie. Communications, (4)1964, 91-135.
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. (A. Lavers, Trans). Paladin.
Barthes, R. (1994). The Semiotic Challenge. University of California Press.
Basílio, M. C. (2005). The overall dance of specialised translation. The Journal of Specialised Translation,
(2)1, 6-20.
Bateman, J. A., (2008). Multimodality and Genre. Springer.
Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J., & Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis–A
Problem-oriented Introduction. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist
teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist‐teaching
method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121.
305
Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle
learning management system. TechTrends, 50(4), 36-45.
Belete, N.H. (2021) A Review Paper on ELT Articles Conducted on EFL Teachers’ Perceptions, Practices
and Challenges towards Communicative Language Teaching. Preprints 2021090373
http://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202109.0373.v1.
Bell, P., & Milic, M. (2002). Goffman’s gender advertisements revisited: Combining content analysis with
semiotic analysis. Visual Communication, 1(2), 203-222.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S. & Lockyer, L. (2015). Technology tools to support learning design: Implications
derived from an investigation of university teachers' design practices. Computers and Education,
81 211-220.
Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J. & Harper, B. (2011). Understanding the
design context for Australian university teachers: implications for the future of learning design.
Learning Media and Technology, 36(2), 151-167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553622
Berge, Z. L. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Beskow, D. M., Kumar, S., & Carley, K. M. (2020). The evolution of political memes: Detecting and
characterizing internet memes with multi-modal deep learning. Information Processing &
Management, 57(2), 102170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102170
Bétrancourt, M., & Benetos, K. (2018). Why and when does instructional video facilitate learning? A
commentary to the special issue “developments and trends in learning with instructional video”.
Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 471-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.035.
Bezemer, J., Cope, A., Kress, G., & Kneebone, R. (2014). Holding the scalpel: Achieving surgical care in
a learning environment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(1), 38-63.
Bezemer, J., & Jewitt, C. (2009). Social Semiotics. In J. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The Handbook
of Pragmatics Online Vol. XIII (pp. 1–14) John Benjamins Publishing Company.
https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.13.soc5
Bezemer, J., & Jewitt, C. (2009). Multimodal Analysis: Key Issues. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research
Methods in Linguistics (pp. 180–97) Continuum.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for
learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166-195.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of applied
Psychology, 57(3), 195.
Bilki, Z. & Plakans, L. (2022). Levels of textual cohesion and the meaning-construction process of
advanced second language readers. TESOL Journal, 00, e656. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.656.
Bishop, F. L. (2015). Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: An illustrated discussion
from a pragmatist perspective. British Journal Of Health Psychology, 20(1), 5-20.
Blin, F. (2016). Towards an ‘ecological’ CALL theory: Theoretical perspectives and their instantiation in
CALL research and practice. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language
Learning and Technology. (pp. 39-54) Routledge.
Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Gamoran Sherin, M., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based
heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal For Educational Research
Online, 5(1), 90-114.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and
Methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Bolliger, D. U., Inan, F. A., & Wasilik, O. (2014). Development and validation of the online instructor
satisfaction measure (OISM). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 183-195.
Bolliger, D. U., & Supanakorn, S. (2011). Learning styles and student perceptions of the use of interactive
online tutorials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 470-481.
306
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and
learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high
school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793-806.
Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, K, & Swan, K. (2019). An Exploration of the
Relationship Between Indicators of the Community of Inquiry Framework and Retention in
Online Programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i3.1657.
Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (Eds.). (2003). Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction 4.
Olin College/Sloan Consortium.
Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The Blackboard learning system. The Journal
of Educational Technology Systems 35(3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FX137-X73L-
5261-5656.
Brandt, C. (2006). Allowing for practice: A critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation. ELT Journal, 60(4),
355-364.
Brooke, M. (2014). Developing the Reflective Practice Capabilities of Pre-Service Trainees in TESOL
through Online Means. 4th CELC Symposium Proceedings. National University of Singapore,
50-60.
Brown, D. J. (2015). Approaching the grammatical count/mass distinction from a multimodal perspective.
TESOL Quarterly 49(3). 601-608.
Brown, G. T., Gebril, A., Michaelides, M. P., & Remesal, A. (2018). Assessment as an emotional practice:
Emotional challenges faced by L2 teachers within assessment. In J. D. D. M. Agudo (Ed.),
Emotions in Second Language Teaching Theory, Research and Teacher Education. (pp. 205-222)
Springer International
Brown, J. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press.
Buraphadeja, V., & Dawson, K. (2008). Content analysis in computer-mediated communication: Analyzing
models for assessing critical thinking through the lens of social constructivism. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640802224568.
Burt, L., & Kilroy, S. (2021). Nurse Practitioner Student Perceptions of a Multimodal Telemedicine
Clinical Course. Nurse Educator, 46(5), E122-E126.
https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000001019.
Bush, R., Castelli, P., Lowry, P., & Cole, M. (2010). The importance of teaching presence in online and
hybrid classrooms. In Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership. (pp. 7-13). AEL.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1080.6503&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Cameron, R., & Miller, P. (2007, December 4 – 7). Mixed methods research: Phoenix of the paradigm wars.
[Paper presentation]. 21st Annual Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM)
Conference. Sydney, Australia (pp. 1 – 15). Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management
(ANZAM)
Capobianco, B. M. (2007). A Self-Study of the Role of Technology in Promoting Reflection and Inquiry-
Based Science Teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 271-295.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9041-z.
Carlon, S., Bennett-Woods, D., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, N., Marcisz, N., Mulhall, T., Noteboom, T.,
Sneddon, K., Whelan, K., & Zenoni, L. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation
and results in online health care disciplines. Computers & Education, 59(2), 215-221.
Carrier, K. A. (2003). NNS teacher trainees in Western‐based TESOL programs. ELT journal, 57(3), 242-
250. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.242.
Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A
construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39. 1-12.
307
Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 Years of the Community of Inquiry Framework. TechTrends: Linking
Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 64(4). 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-
00491-7.
Caswell, C. A. (2017). Design and facilitation of problem-based learning in graduate teacher education: An
MA TESOL case. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1623.
Cazden, C. (1990). Review: Recent Publications on Classroom Research. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 717-
724. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587117.
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., Luke, A., Luke, C., Michaels, S.,
& Nakata, M. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
educational review, 66(1), 60-92.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
Chandra Y., & Shang L. (2019) Inductive Coding. In Y. Chandra & L. Shang (Eds.) Qualitative Research
Using R: A Systematic Approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3170-1_8
Chapelle, C. (1997) CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning &
Technology, 1(1): 19–43. http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/default.html.
Chapelle, C. (2003) English Language Learning &Technology: Lectures on Applied Linguistics in the Age
of Information and Communication Technology. John Benjamins.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage.
Charness, N., & Boot, W. R. (2016). Technology, gaming, and social networking. In K. Warner Schaie,
Sherry L. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (8th ed., pp. 389-407) Academic
Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-411469-2.00020-0.
Chen, G., Shea, P., and Chen, X. (2022) Investigation on graduate students’ social presence and social
knowledge construction in two online discussion settings. Education and Information
Technologies, 27(2), 2751–2769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10716-8.
Chen, X. L., Zou, D., Xie, H. R., & Su, F. (2021). Twenty-five years of computer-assisted language learning:
A topic modeling analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3), 151–185.
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73454
Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Choi, J., & Yi, Y. (2015). Teachers’ integration of multimodality into classroom practices for English
language laerners. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 304-327. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.204.
Ciccantelli, S., & Magidson, J. (1993). Consumer idealized design: involving consumers in the product
development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication
of the Product Development & Management Association, 10(4), 341-347.
Cirocki, A., & Farrell, T. S. (2017). Reflective practice for professional development of TESOL
practitioners. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 6(2), 5-23.
Cisneroz, A. (2021) Examining the impact of instructor-generated video in online graduate courses.
[Doctoral Thesis]. Texas Tech University. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/88641.
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning
environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4),
269-292.
Cloonan, A. (2008). Multimodality pedagogies: A multiliteracies approach. International Journal of
Learning, 15(9), 159-168. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30017615.
Cohen, A., & Holstein, S. (2018). Analysing successful massive open online courses using the community
of inquiry model as perceived by students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 544-
556.
308
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). Routledge.
Cobb, S. C., (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning 8(3), 241-254.
Coll, C., Engel, A., & Bustos, A. (2009). Distributed Teaching Presence and Participants' Activity Profiles:
a theoretical approach to the structural analysis of Asynchronous Learning Networks 1. European
Journal of Education, 44(4), 521-538.
Connelly, L. M. (2009). Mixed methods studies. MEDSURG Nursing, 18(1), 31-32.
Conrad, O. (2015). Community of Inquiry and Video in Higher Education Engaging Students Online.
[Master’s thesis]. California State University. Fullerton.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/f590b810ad0dc838f7b15de0c88a6962/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
Cox, D., & Prestridge, S., (2020). Understanding fully online teaching in vocational education. Research
and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-
00138-4.
Crandall, J., & Christison, M. (Eds.), (2016). Teacher education and professional development in TESOL.
New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. London (Eds.)
The Sage Handbook Of Qualitative Research. (pp. 269-284) Sage.
Culatta, R. (2022). Instructional Design. https://www.instructionaldesign.org/.
Cullen, R., Kullman, J., & Wild, C. (2013). Online collaborative learning on an ESL teacher education
programme. ELT Journal, 67(4), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct032.
Cunningham, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Tapsall, S., Bagdon, K., Flew, T. & Coaldrake, P. (2000), The
Business of Borderless Education, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs,
Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_3/bbe.pdf.
Cypress, B.S. (2017). Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies,
Reconceptualization, and Recommendations, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 36(4). 253-
263. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000253.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural
design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554.
Damm, C. A. (2016). Applying a community of inquiry instrument to measure student engagement in large
online courses. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 3(1), Article 9.
https://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol3/iss1/9?utm_source=scholarworks.umb.edu%2Fciee%2F
vol3%2Fiss1%2F9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
Dau, T. T. L. (2021). Remote Teaching amid the Covid-19 Pandemic in Vietnam: Primary School EFL
Teachers’ Practices and Perceptions. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 13(1), 1-21.
http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.13.01.001.
Daud, N. M. & Husin, Z. (2004), Developing critical thinking skills in computer-aided extended reading
classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 477-487.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00405.x
Daguay-James, H., & Bulusan, F. (2020). Metacognitive Strategies on Reading English Texts of ESL
Freshmen: A Sequential Explanatory Mixed Design. TESOL International Journal, 15(1), 20-30.
Darhower, M. (2002) Interactional features of synchronous CMC in the intermediate L2 class: A
sociocultural case study, CALICO Journal, 19(2): 249–277.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24149361
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340.
309
Davis, R., & Wong, D. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring the optimal experience of the eLearning
environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 97-126.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00129.x.
de Campos Filho, A. S., de Souza Fantini, W., Ciriaco, M. A., dos Santos, J., Moreira, F., & Gomes, A. S.
(2019). Health student using Google classroom: Satisfaction analysis. In L. Uden, D. Liberona,
G. Sanchez, & S. Rodríguez-González (Eds.), Learning Technology for Education Challenges
(LTEC 2019): Communications in Computer and Information Science (pp. 58–66). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20798-4_6.
De Costa, P. I., Rawal, H., & Li, W. (2018). L2 teachers’ emotions: A socio-political and ideological
perspective. In Agudo, J. d D. M (Ed.), Emotions In Second Language Teaching (pp. 91-108).
Springer.
Demir, Y., & Koçyiğit, M. (2018). A systematic review of research on English language teacher education
published in three flagship journals (1997-2016). Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 4(1), 128-138. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ekuad/issue/35893/416766.
Dempsey, P. R., & Zhang, J. (2019). Re-examining the construct validity and causal relationships of
teaching, cognitive, and social presence in Community of Inquiry framework. Online Learning,
23(1), 62-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1419.
Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2020) National survey of ELICOS providers in
Australia in 2019. Australian Government.
https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/Research-
Snapshots/Documents/RS-%20ELICOS%20Survey%202019.pdf.
Derboven, J., Geerts, D., & De Grooff, D. (2017). Appropriating virtual learning environments: A study of
teacher tactics. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 40, 20-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2017.01.002
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.
Science, 332(6031), 862-864.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze
transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & education, 46(1),
6-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005.
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we Think. Dover Publications.
Dewey, J. (1946). Problems of Men. Philosophical Library Inc.
Dewey, J. & Dworkin, M. S. (1959). Dewey on Education: Selections. Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Dewey, J. & Bently, A. (1976). Knowing and the Known. Praeger.
Díaz, S. R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items,
multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. The Internet
and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 22-30.
Dillon A. and Morris M. G. (1996). User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 14(4), 3-32.
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105584.
Djonov, E. (2005). Analysing the organisation of information in websites: From hypermedia design to
systemic functional hypermedia discourse analysis [Doctoral thesis]. The University of New
South Wales]. UNSWorks, http: // unsworks. unsw. edu.au /fapi/ datastream /unsworks: 901/
SOURCE01?view=true.
Djonov, E. (2007). Website hierarchy and the interaction between content organization, webpage and
navigation design: A systemic functional hypermedia discourse analysis perspective. Information
Design Journal, 15(2), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.2.07djo.
310
Djonov, E., Knox, J., & Zhao, S. (2013). Tools for the Critical Multimodal Analysis of Websites. Palgrave.
Djonov, E., Knox, J.S., & Zhao, S. (2015). Interpreting Websites in Educational Contexts: A Social-
Semiotic, Multimodal Approach. In P. Smeyers, D. Bridges, N. Burbules, M. Griffiths (Eds.)
International Handbook of Interpretation in Educational Research (pp. 315-346) Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9282-0_16.
Djonov, E. & van Leeuwen, T. (2012). Normativity and software: a multimodal social semiotic approach.
In S. Norris (Ed.), Multimodality in Practice (pp. 129-147) Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203801246.
Djonov, E. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Between the grid and composition: Layout in PowerPoint's design
and use. Semiotica, 2013(197), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0078.
Djonov, E., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2017). The power of semiotic software: A critical multimodal perspective.
In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook Of Critical Discourse
Studies (pp. 566-581) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342.
Downe‐Wamboldt, B. (1992) Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women
International, 13(3), 313-321, http://doi.org/10.1080/07399339209516006.
Downing, J. J., Dyment, J. E., and Stone, C. (2019). Online initial teacher education in Australia:
Affordances for pedagogy, practice and outcomes. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
44(5), 57-78.
Draper, A. K. (2004). The principles and application of qualitative research. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 63(4), 641-646. http://doi.org/ :10.1079/PNS2004397
Dunn, M. & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2018). Emotional Challenges Faced by L2 Teachers When Teaching and
Assessing Students with Learning Disabilities and Difficulties. In J. D. D. M. Agudo (Ed.),
Emotions in Second Language Teaching Theory, Research and Teacher Education (pp. 223-242)
Springer.
Dyer, C. (1995). Beginning research in psychology: A practical guide to research methods and statistics.
Blackwell Publishing.
Early, M., Kendrick, M., & Potts, D. (2015). Multimodality: Out from the margins of English language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly 49(3). 447-460
Edwards, E. (2019). Research on Reflective Practice in TESOL. ELT Journal, 73(2), 238-240.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz003.
Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing Casual Conversation. Cassell
Ellis A. (1947) Personality Questionnaires. Review of Educational Research, 17(1), 53-63.
http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543017001053.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1),
107–115. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Emerick, M. R. (2019). Explicit teaching and authenticity in L2 listening instruction: University language
teachers' beliefs. System, 80, 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.004.
Engel, A., Coll, C., and Bustos, A. (2013). Distributed Teaching Presence and communicative patterns in
asynchronous learning: Name versus reply networks. Computers & Education, 60(1), 184-196.
England, L. (2012). Online language teacher education: TESOL perspectives. Routledge.
Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of
Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93-99.
Fahy, P., Ally, M., Crawford, G., Cookson, P.S., Keller, V., Prosser, F. (2000). The development and testing
of a tool for analysis of computer mediated conferencing transcripts. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 46, 85-88
311
Farrell, S. (2015, October 25). Navigation: You are Here. Neilsen Norman Group.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/navigation-you-are-here/.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007c). Promoting reflection in language teacher education through case-based teaching.
The New English Teacher, 1(1), 61-70.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2008) Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal 62(1), 3-10.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm072.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2009b). Teaching Reading to English Language Learners. A Reflective Guide. Corwin
Press
Farrell, T. S. C. (2012). Novice‐service language teacher development: Bridging the gap between
preservice and in‐service education and development. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 435-449.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Encouraging Critical Reflection in a Teacher Education Course: A Canadian Case
Study. In Farrell, T.S.C. (Ed.) International Perspectives on English Language Teacher
Education. International Perspectives on English Language Teaching (pp. 36-50) Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137440068_3.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Second Language Teacher Education: A Reality Check. In: Farrell, T.S.C. (Ed.)
International Perspectives on English Language Teacher Education. International Perspectives
on English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan. (pp. 1-15).
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137440068_1
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016a). The Teacher Is a Facilitator: Reflecting on ESL Teacher Beliefs through Metaphor
Analysis. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 1-10. doi:
10.30466/ijltr.2016.20374.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016d). From trainee to teacher. Reflective practice for novice teachers. Equinox
Publishing.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016h). Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in
reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research,
20(2), 223-247.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2016, August). Teacher Stories Through the “Tree of Life”. The English Connection, 20(3),
29-30.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2017, March). Language Teacher Research: Enlightenment or Academic Terrorism? The
English Connection, 21(1), 27-28.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2017j). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018c). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal
of Second Language Teacher Education 1(1), 1-20
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018b). Reflective practice for language teachers. In J. L. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL
Encyclopaedia of English language teaching. Wiley Online Library.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0873
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018c). Reflective Language Teaching: Practical Applications for TESOL Teachers.
Bloomsburry Academic.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2019a). ‘My Training Has Failed Me’: Inconvenient Truths About Second Language
Teacher Education (SLTE). The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 22(4), 1-
16.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2019b). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Interpreting reflective practice in TESOL.
Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 7(3) (Special Issue), 1-14.
Farrell, T. S. C. & Kennedy, B. (2007). Reflective practice framework for TESOL teachers: one teacher's
reflective journey, Reflective Practice, 20(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1539657
312
Farrell, T. S. C. & Vos, R. (2018). Exploring the Principles and Practices of One Teacher of L2 Speaking:
The Importance of Reflecting on Practice. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, (6)1,
1 – 15. http://doi.org/ 10.30466/IJLTR.2018.20486.
Fei, Z., Li, Z., Zhang, J., Feng, Y., & Zhou, J. (2021). Towards expressive communication with internet
memes: A new multimodal conversation dataset and benchmark. ArXiv
https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01839.
Feng, X., Xie, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). Using the community of inquiry framework to scaffold online tutoring.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 162-188.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2362.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.
Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative
example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European journal of physics, 33(3),
657-666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/3/657.
Fredlund, T., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Linder, A. (2014) Unpacking physics representations: Towards an
appreciation of disciplinary affordance. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education
Research, 10(2), 020129.
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence
issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers and C. Howard (Eds.)
Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed. pp. 352-355). IGI Global.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer
conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer
conference in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry
framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review,
issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Garrison, D. R., and Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005) Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning:
Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148,
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching,
cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological
issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education,
9(1), 1-8.
Ghaye, T. (2000) Into the reflective mode: bridging the stagnant moat. Reflectice Practice, 1(1), 5-9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713693133.
Gebhard, M. (2012). Systemic Functional Linguistic Approaches to Teaching English-Language Learners.
In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 5505-5509) Wiley Online
Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1167.
Gerhardt, C. (2021). Constructing Immediacy at a Distance. Anglistik 32(2), 43 - 65
https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/2/6.
Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case
study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.
313
Gimeno-Sanz, A. (2016). Moving a step further from “integrative CALL”. What's to come? Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 29(6), 1102–1115.
Gkougkoura, C., Paida, S., Vitsou, M., & Palaiologou, N. (2022). Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) in
multilingual contexts: A Mixed Methods Case Study. International Journal of Modern Education
Studies, 6(1). 1-20. https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2022.115
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social problems, 12(4),
436-445.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, R. (1967). The Discovery Of Grounded Theory. Aldine.
Goh, W. W., Hong, J. L., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Exploring students' perceptions of learning management
system: An empirical study based on TAM. In M. J. W. Lee (Ed.), Proceedings of 2013 IEEE
International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 2013,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (pp. 367-372).
https://doi.org10.1109/TALE.2013.6654463.
Goh, W. W., Hong, J. L., & Gunawan, W. (2014). Exploring Lecturers’ Perceptions of Learning
Management System: An Empirical Study Based on TAM. International Journal of Engineering
Pedagogy (iJEP), 4(3), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i3.3497.
Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., & Taveras, L. (2014).
What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher
educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114535266.
Green, J. & Caracelli, V. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation,
74. 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1069
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method
evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual Commentary as a Way to Reduce Transactional Distance and Increase
Teaching Presence in Online Writing Instruction: Student Perceptions and Preferences. Journal
of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83–128.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational
Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry.
Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 233-252.
Guerra, V. (2020, July 14). 6 Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load for a Better UI. Adobe Corporation.
https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/process/information-architecture/6-ways-to-reduce-cognitive-load-
for-a-better-ui/.
Guichon, N. & Cohen, C. (2016). Multimodality and CALL. In F. Farr and L. Murray (eds.). The Routledge
Handbook of Language Learning and Technology. (pp. 509-521). Routledge.
Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2015). Cognitive presence
through social and teaching presence in communities of inquiry: A correlational–predictive study.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3). 349-362
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐
mediated conferencing environment. American journal of distance education, 11(3), 8-26.
Guyan, M. (2013, November 1). Five ways to reduce cognitive load in e-Learning.
http://elearningindustry.com/5-ways-to-reduce-cognitive-load-in-elearning
Hake, R.R. (1998a). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66. 64-74.
Hall, D., & Knox, J. (2009). Issues in the education of TESOL teachers by distance education. Distance
Education, 30(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845964.
314
Halliday, M. A. K. (1969). Relevant models of language. Educational Review, 22(1), 26-37.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and
Meaning. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st ed.). Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Language and knowledge: The ‘unpacking’ of text. In D. Allison, L. Wee, B.
Zhiming and S. A. Abraham (Eds.) Text In Education and Society (pp. 157-178) Singapore
University Press.
Hampel, R. & Hauck, M. (2006) Computer-mediated language learning: Making meaning in multimodal
virtual learning spaces. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(2), 3-18.
Hansen, T. (2008). Consumer values, the theory of planned behaviour and online grocery shopping.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2007.00655.x
Harrison, C. (2003). Visual social semiotics: Understanding how still images make meaning. Technical
communication, 50(1), 46-60
Hata, M. (2003). Literature review: Using computer-mediated communication in second language
classrooms. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54(3), 115-125.
Hauge, K. (2021). Self-Study Research: Challenges and Opportunities in Teacher Education. In M. J.
Hernández-Serrano (Ed.), Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a
Changing World. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96252
Haugeland, J. (1978). The nature and plausibility of cognitivism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(2), 215-
226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00074148.
Hayes, S., Smith, S., & Shea, P. (2015). Expanding Learning Presence to Account for the Direction of
Regulative Intent: Self-, Co- and Shared Regulation in Online Learning. Online Learning. 19. 1-
19. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.666.
Hébert, C. (2015). Knowing and/or experiencing: A critical examination of the reflective models of John
Dewey and Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 16(3), 361-371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1023281.
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2002, November 8 – 10). How do ALNs change the role of the teacher in case
study discussion. 8th Sloan-C International Conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks,
Orlando, FL., USA.
Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning
environment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher
Education (Online), 36(7), 1-16.
Heilporn, G., & Lakhal, S. (2020). Investigating the reliability and validity of the community of inquiry
framework: An analysis of categories within each presence. Computers & Education, 145(2020),
103712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712.
Heller, M. C. & Grøver, V. (2022). Teachers’ instructional talk in a partly scripted language intervention
targeting young second-language learners: developments over time, International Journal of
Early Years Education, 30(2), 322-338, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1893665.
Hewett, B. L., & Powers, C. E. (2007). Guest editors' introduction: Online teaching and learning:
Preparation, development, and organizational communication. Technical Communication
Quarterly, 16(1), 1-11.
Hickok, J. (2005). ESL (English as a Second Language) Web sites: Resources for library administrators,
librarians, and ESL library users. Journal of Library Administration, 43(3-4), 247-262.
Hiippala, T., Alikhani, M., Haverinen, J., Kalliokoski, T., Logacheva, E., Orekhova, S., ... & Bateman, J.
A. (2021). AI2D-RST: A multimodal corpus of 1000 primary school science diagrams. Language
Resources and Evaluation, 55(3), 661-688.
315
Hjelmslev, L., & Whitfield, F. J. (1953). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. University of Wisconsin
Press
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social semiotics. Cornell University Press.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. R. (1993). Language as Ideology (Politics of Language). (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Holmes, B. (2017, December 12). Using authentic materials in the ESL classroom.
https://hongkongtesol.com/blog/2017/12/using-authentic-materials-esl-classroom.
HolonIQ (2019, June 6). Education in 2030. The $10 Trillion dollar question. Five Scenarios for the Future
of Learning and Talent. https://www.holoniq.com/2030/
Holsanova, J. (2012). New methods for studying visual communication and multimodal integration. Visual
Communication, 11(3), 251-257.
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Addison-Wesley.
Holsting, A. & van Leeuwen, T. (2016). Mode. In N. Nørgaard (Ed.), Key Terms in Multimodality:
Definitions, Issues, Discussions. https://multimodalkeyterms.wordpress.com/
Hong, J. C., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., & Zhao, L. (2021). High school students' online learning ineffectiveness in
experimental courses during the covid-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. 738695.
https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2021.738695.
Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012) The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: student
perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational
Media International, 49(3), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014.
Hubbard, P. (2007). Critical issues: Professional development. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.),
CALL Environments (2nd ed. pp. 276- 292) TESOL.
Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics. Routledge.
Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language learning
environments. Calico Journal, 30(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/ 10.11139/cj.30.2.163-178
Hubbard, P. (2017). Technologies for Teaching and Learning L2 Listening. In C.A. Chapelle and S. Sauro
(Eds.), The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning. (pp. 93-106).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch7.
Hubbard, P. (2021). An Invitation to CALL. Asia-Pacific Association for Computer-Assisted Language
Learning (APACALL).
Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher
Education in CALL. (pp. 3-20) John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2016). Theory in computer-assisted language learning research and practice. In
F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology. (pp.
24-38) Routledge.
Indrayadi, T., & Irawan, Y. (2022). Unveiling Indonesian Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceived Competencies
and Readiness for Online English Language Teaching: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 13(2), 392-400. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1302.21.
Irwanto, I. (2021). Research Trends in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A
Systematic Literature Review from 2010 to 2021. European Journal of Educational Research,
10(4), 2045-2054. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.2045.
Jackson, K., & Bazeley, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage.
Jackson, L. C., Jackson, A. C., & Chambers, D. (2013). Establishing an online community of inquiry at the
Distance Education Centre, Victoria. Distance Education, 34(3), 353-367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835774
Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis
of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307–337.
316
Jan, S. K., Vlachopoulos, P., & Parsell, M. (2019). Social network analysis and learning communities in
higher education online learning: A systematic literature review. Learning, 23(1), 249-264.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1398
Järlehed, J. & Jaworski, A. (2015). Typographic landscaping: creativity, ideology, movement. Social
Semiotics, 25(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1010318.
J’son & Partners (2021, June 10) English Language Learning Market, 2021. ESL for Kids: Online-Schools
and Trends. https://json.tv/en/ict_telecom_analytics_view/english-language-learning-market-
2021-esl-for-kids-online-schools-and-trends.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review Of Research In Education, 32(1),
241-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
Jewitt, C. (2008). Technology, Literacy and Learning: A Multimodal Approach. Tylor & Francis.
Jewitt, C. (2009a), An Introduction to Multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of
Multimodal Analysis. (pp. 14-27) Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2009b), 'Different Approaches to Multimodality', In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook
of Multimodal Analysis. (pp. 28-39) Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.), (2009c), Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2017a). Towards a Multimodal Social Semiotic Agenda for Touch. In A. Björkvall, E. Djonov,
M. Boeriis, and S. Zhao (Eds.), Advancing Multimodal and Critical Discourse Studies:
Interdisciplinary Research Inspired by Theo Van Leeuwen’s Social Semiotics. (pp. 79-93) Taylor
& Francis.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality. Routledge
Jewitt, C., and Henriksen, B. (2016). Social Semiotic Multimodality. De Gruyter.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and
linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational
Review, 53(1), 5-18.
Jézégou, A. (2010). Community of inquiry in e-learning: A critical analysis of Garrison and Anderson
model. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'Education à Distance, 24(3), 1-18.
Jin, Y., & Harp, C. (2020). Examining preservice teachers’ TPACK, attitudes, self-efficacy, and
perceptions of teamwork in a stand-alone educational technology course using flipped classroom
or flipped team-based learning pedagogies. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
36(3), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1752335.
Johansen, J. D. (1988). The Distinction between Icon, Index, and Symbol in the Study of Literature, Semiotic
Theory and Practice. Walter de Gruyter.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time
has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jun, H. G., & Lee, H. W. (2012). Student and teacher trial and perceptions of an online ESL academic
writing unit. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 128-131.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning
and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (n.d.) About Learning by Design. Works & Days [Blog].
https://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/about-learning-by-design
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review:
developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of
online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260-271.
317
Kaul, M., Aksela, M., & Wu, X. (2018). Dynamics of the community of inquiry (CoI) within a massive
open online course (MOOC) for in-service teachers in environmental education. Education
Sciences, 8(2), 40. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci8020040.
Keengwe, J., Pearson, D., & Smart, K. (2009). Technology integration: Mobile devices (iPods),
constructivist pedagogy, and student learning. AACE Review, 17(4), 333-346.
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better. In
P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL. (pp. 23-42) John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student initiated attention to form in wiki based collaborative writing. Language
Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95.
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer
mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467335.
Kessler, G. & Hubbard, P. (2017). Language Teacher Education and Technology. In C.A. Chapelle and S.
Sauro (Eds), The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning. (pp.
278-292) Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch19.
Khodjakulova, N. (2021). The implementation of online metacognitive strategies to develop English essay
and letter writing skills. Mental Enlightenment Scientific-Methodological Journal, 2021(1), 100-
109. https://uzjournals.edu.uz/tziuj/vol2021/iss1/12.
Kihoza, P., Zlotnikova, I., Bada, J., & Kalegele, K. (2016). Classroom ICT integration in Tanzania:
Opportunities and challenges from the perspectives of TPACK and SAMR models. International
Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 12(1), 107-128.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/173436/.
Kimura, D., & Canagarajah, S. (2020). Embodied semiotic resources in Research Group Meetings: How
language competence is framed. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24(5), 634-655. https://doi.org
10.1111/josl.12435
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information &
management, 43(6), 740-755.
Kirtley, C., Murray, C., Vaughan, P. B., & Tatler, B. W. (2018). Reading words and images: Factors
influencing eye movements in comic reading. In A. Dunst, J. Laubrock, & J. Wildfeuer (Eds.)
Empirical Comics Research. (pp. 264-283) Routledge.
Knox, J. S. (2009). Multimodal discourse on online newspaper home pages: A social-semiotic perspective
[Doctoral dissertation, The University of Sydney]. Sydney Digital Theses,
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/7696#
Knox, J. S. (2012). Multimodality and Systemic Functional Analysis. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.). The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. (pp. 1-7) Wiley Online Library.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0836.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.
Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for
educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83-86.
Koller, V. (2008). Not just a colour': pink as a gender and sexuality marker in visual communication. Visual
Communication, 7(4), 395-423.
Konovalov, A. & Krajbich, I. (2018). Neurocomputational Dynamics of Sequence Learning. Neuron 98(6),
1282-1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.013.
Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S.,
Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in Massive Open Online
119(April 2018), 44-58.Courses. Computers and Education,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010
Kozan, K. (2016). A comparative structural equation modelling investigation of the relationships among
teaching, cognitive and social presence. Online Learning, 20(3), 210-227.
Kozan, K. & Caskurlu, S. (2018) On the Nth presence for the community of inquiry framework. Computers
& Education, 122, 104-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.010.
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014a). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and
cognitive presence. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68-73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.007.
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014b). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the
community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.002.
Krashen, S. D., (1985). The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications. Longman Group UK Ltd.
Krashen, S. D., Terrell, T. D., Ehrman, M. E., & Herzog, M. (1984). A theoretical basis for teaching the
receptive skills. Foreign Language Annals, 17(4), 261.
Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Community of Inquiry: Social
presence revisited. E-learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 5–18.
Kress, G. R. (1993). Against Arbitrariness: The Social Production of the Sign as a Foundational Issue in
Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2), 169-191.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002003
Kress, G. R. (1997). Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. Routledge.
Kress, G. R., (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge.
Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Communication. Routledge Falmer.
Kress, G. R. (2012). Thinking about the notion of ‘cross-cultural’ from a social semiotic perspective.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(4), 369-385.
Kress, G. R. (2014). What is Mode? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis.
(2nd ed., pp. 60-75) Routledge.
Kress G. R. and Hodge R. (1979). Language as Ideology. Routledge.
Kress, G. R., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The
rhetorics of the science classroom. Continuum.
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge.
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Communication. Arnold.
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006) (2nd ed.). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.
Routledge.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Validity in content analysis. In E. Mochmann (Ed.), Computer strategien für die
kommunikationsanalyse. (pp. 69-112). Campus.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Logic of discovery or Psychology of research? In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.)
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Vol. 4: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in
the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965. (pp. 1 - 23) Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993), Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science
Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306.
Kumar, J.A., Bervell, B. & Osman, S. (2020). Google classroom: insights from Malaysian higher education
students’ and instructors’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 4175–4195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10163-x.
318
319
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL quarterly, 33(3), 453-484.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587674.
Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Weisenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the relationship
between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 9(1), 23-24.
Kvåle, G. (1996). The 1,000-page question. Qualitative inquiry, 2(3), 275-284.
Kvåle, G., & Poulsen, S. V. (2018). The Templatized Aesthetics of Wix: A Social Semiotic Technology
Approach to Web Design. In E. S. Tønnessen and F. Forsgren (Eds.) Multimodality and Aesthetics.
(pp. 211-225) Routledge.
Kynigos, C. (1997). Dynamic representations of angle with a Logo-based variation tool: a case study. In
M. Turcsanyi-Szabo (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th EuroLogo Conference 104-112.
Lam, J. Y. (2015a). Autonomy presence in the extended community of inquiry. International Journal of
Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 8(1), 39-61.
Lam, J. Y. (2015b). The Student Experience of a Blended Learning Accounting Course: A Case Study in
Hong Kong. [Doctor of Education Thesis, University of Nottingham]. Nottingham ePrints,
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31983/1/Thesis%20-%204110301%20Jeanne%20Lam%20(ETh
esis).pdf
Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st Century teaching for
21st-Century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 264-
276. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.6.5.
Le Compte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography And Qualitative Design In Educational
Research (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2018). Metacognition and metacognitive instruction in second language writing
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 1085-1097.
Legg, Catherine. (2008). The problem of the essential icon. American Philosophical Quarterly, 45(3). 207-
232
Lemke, J. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D Reinking, M. C. McKenna,
L. D. Labbo, and R. D. Keiffer (Eds.) Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations
in a Post-Typographic World. (pp. 283-302) Routledge.
Lemke, J.L. (2001) ‘The long and the short of it: Comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity’,
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1): 17– 26.
Lemke, J. (2002) ‘Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of
learning’. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological
Perspectives, Continuum (pp. 68– 87).
Lemke, J. (2005) ‘Place, pace, and meaning: multimedia chronotopes’. Iin S. Norris and R.H. Jones (Eds.),
Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis, Routledge, Taylor and Francis
(pp.110–121).
Levin, J. A., & Moore, J. A. (1977). Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language
interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395-420.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1990). Mythologiques (Mythologies) I – IV. (J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Trans).
University of Chicago Press.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford University
Press.
Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call call “CALL”? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3),
143–149.
Levy, M. & Stockwell G (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer Assisted Language
Learning. Routledge.
320
Li, C. & Lalani, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. World
Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-
covid19-online-digital-learning/
Li, M. (2020). Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: Students’ perspectives. System 94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102337.
Li, B., Li, W., & Wu, J. (2022, February). Research on the Practice of Teachers’ Dynamic Assessment
Based on the Theory of the Zone of Proximal Development. 2021 International Conference on
Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2021), 572-576.
Limperos, A. M., Buckner, M. M., Kaufmann, R., & Frisby, B. N. (2015). Online teaching and
technological affordances: An experimental investigation into the impact of modality and clarity
on perceived and actual learning. Computers & Education, 83, 1-9.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Linet, A. (2020). Evaluating student satisfaction - restricting lecturer professionalism: outcomes of using
the UK national student survey questionnaire for internal student evaluation of teaching.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 331-344,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1640863
Leider, C. M., & Tigert, J. M. (2022). English language development specialists' views on emergency
remote teaching. TESOL Journal 13(2), e652. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.652
Lim, M. H. & Aryadoust, V. (2021). A scientometric review of research trends in computer-assisted
language learning (1977 – 2020), Computer Assisted Language Learning,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1892768
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
Littlewood, W., William, L., & Swan, M. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction.
Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Y., Liu, Z., Luan, H., Sun, M., Rao, S., & Liu, S. (2015). Modelling relation paths for representation
learning of knowledge bases. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in
Natural Language Processing, 705–714.
Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners' reading comprehension. TESOL quarterly, 38(2), 225-
243. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588379.
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. J. (2010). From autopsy to biopsy: A metacognitive view of lesson planning
and teacher trainees in ELT. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1362-1371.
Loranc‐Paszylk, B., Hilliker, S. M., & Lenkaitis, C. A. (2021). Virtual exchanges in language teacher
education: Facilitating reflection on teaching practice through the use of video. TESOL Journal,
12(2), e580. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.580.
Lotherington, H. (2017). Elementary language education in digital multimodal and multiliteracy contexts.
S. Thorne, S. May (eds.), Language, Education and Technology, Encyclopedia of Language and
Education (pp. 71-85) Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
02328-1_7-1.
Nathan, T., Lucski, G., & McCulloch, E. (2021). Resilience in the face of emergency remote teaching: EAL
pupils’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. TESOL Journal, 12(2) e591.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.591
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching And
Teacher Education, 23(5), 586-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001.
Lumsden, S. H. (2018). The relationship between teaching presence and online instructor satisfaction
[Master’s thesis, Macquarie University]. Macquarie University Research Online,
http://minerva.mq.edu.au:8080/vital/access/services/Download/mq:70605/SOURCE1?view=tru
e.
Lumsden, S. H. (2021, November 18). Towards a Multimodal Community of Inquiry Framework
[Conference presentation]. 15th Biennial Association for Academic Language and Learning
Conference 2021 – Diversity, Distance, Digitalisation: Inclusive and supportive practices in ALL,
Darwin, NT, Australia. https://aallconference2021.cdu.edu.au/day-2-
abstracts/#:~:text=Towards%20a%20Multimodal%20Community%20of%20Inquiry%20Frame
work
Luo, L., Liu, Q., Zhang, N., & Xu, B. (2019, December). Investigating Interactive Behaviors in Online
Community of Inquiry Using Social Network Analysis. 2019 International Joint Conference on
Information, Media and Engineering (IJCIME), 125-131. IEEE.
Ma, Z., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Kong, L., Wu, Y., & Yang, H. (2017). Verifying causal relationships among
the presences of the community of inquiry framework in the Chinese context. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 18(6), 213-230.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3197.
Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature review–faculty participation in online distance education: Barriers and
motivators. Online journal of distance learning administration, 8(1), 1-16.
Magnusson, P., & Godhe, A.-L. (2019). Multimodality in Language Education – Implications for Teaching.
Designs for Learning, 11(1), 127–137. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.127
Makri, K., Papanikolaou, K., & Tsakiri, A. (2014). Blending the community of inquiry framework with
learning by design: Towards a synthesis for blended learning in teacher training. Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 12(2), 183-194.
Mali, Y. G., & Timotius, A. (2018). Project based activities in a call classroom: EFL students’ experiences.
International Journal of Education, 11(1), 6-17.
Manca, S., Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2006). Un modèle mixte pour l’évaluation des environnements
CSCL. Proceedings of TICE Méditerranée 2006.
Mart, Ç. T. (2021). Can metacognition bring in the ingredients requisite for L2 listening success? AILA
Review, 34(2), 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.21010.mar.
Martin, J. R. (2000, August 31). Inaugural Lecture on Taking up a Personal Chair in Linguistics in the
University of Sydney.
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Wang, C. (2019). Examining faculty perception of their readiness to teach
online. Online Learning, 23(3), 97-119.
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and
learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159(2020), 104009.
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compedu.2020.104009.
Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. Deos News, 1(19), 91-00011.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software
Solution. Beltz.
May, G. L., & Short, D. (2003). Gardening in cyberspace: A metaphor to enhance online teaching and
learning. Journal of Management Education, 27(6), 673-693.
Mazur, E. (1997, March). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. AIP Conference Proceedings
399(1), 981-988. American Institute of Physics.
McCann, A. L., Schneiderman, E. D., & Hinton, R. J. (2010). E‐teaching and learning preferences of dental
and dental hygiene students. Journal of Dental Education, 74(1), 65-78.
McLeod, S. A. (2108, January 21). Skinner – operant conditioning. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
Mclnnes, C., James, R., & Hartley, R. (2000). Trends in the First Year Experience in Australian
Universities, Department of Employment. Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
322
Development [and] Practice Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology 1. 272-277.
MediaLab AI, Inc. (2022). Imgur [Mobile application]. Google Play Store.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.imgur.mobile.
Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027993
Microsoft Corporation, (2021). Microsoft Word [Computer software]. https://www.microsoft.com/en-
au/microsoft-365.
Microsoft Corporation, (2021). Microsoft Excel [Computer software]. https://www.microsoft.com/en-
au/microsoft-365.
Middleton, H. E., & Baartman, L. K. J. (Eds.). (2013). Transfer, Transitions And Transformations Of
Learning. Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-437-6
Min, Y.K. (2002). Fold-down flat panel display device. (United States patent No. US20020067339A1).
Google Patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20020067339A1/en
Minović, M., Štavljanin, V., Milovanović, M., & Starčević, D. (2008, November). Usability issues of e-
learning systems: Case-study for Moodle learning management system. In OTM Confederated
International Conferences" On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems" (pp. 561-570). Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Mirhosseini, S. A. (2018). Mixed methods research in TESOL: Procedures combined or epistemology
confused? TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 468-478.
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for
Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(1), 1017–1054
MODE (2012). Glossary of multimodal terms. https://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/.
Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2022). The effect of professional teaching videos induction and online focused
group discussion on the development of teacher competences. Educational Research for Policy
and Practice, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09318-z.
Mohammed-Ahmed, H. (2021). A multimodal literacy approach to foreign language instruction. Applied
Language Learning 31(1&2), 15-28.
Moradkhani, S., & Rahimi, M. (2020). The impact of students’ English proficiency level and teacher
education on L2 teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: A mixed‐methods study. TESOL Journal,
11(2), e496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.496.
Moreira, J., Ferreira, A. & Almeida, A. (2013). Comparing communities of inquiry of Portuguese higher
education students: one for all or one for each? Open Praxis, 5(2), 165-178.
Moro, L., Mortimer, E. F., & Tiberghien, A. (2020). The use of social semiotic multimodality and joint
action theory to describe teaching practices: two cases studies with experienced teachers.
Classroom Discourse, 11(3), 229-251.
Mortensen, K. & Wagner, J., (2012). Conversation analysis: an overview. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.). The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1339.
Morton, T., & Gray, J. (2010). Personal practical knowledge and identity in lesson planning conferences
on a pre-service TESOL course. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 297–317.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365243.
Mower, D. (1996). A content analysis of student/instructor communication via computer conferencing.
Higher Education, 32, 217-241.
Nash, J. M. (1974) Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism, Thames and Hudson.
National ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS). (2021). Annual Report 2020-2021. NEAS.
https://neas.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/21a_NEAS_ANNUAL_REPORT_2021-1.pdf.
McKlin, T., Harmon, S. W., Evans, W., & Jones, M. G. (2001). Cognitive presence in Web-based learning:
A content analysis of students' online discussions. Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and
323
Newfield, D. (2014). Transformation, transduction and the transmodal moment. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed., pp. 100–113). Routledge.
Newfield, D. & D’Abdon, R. (2015). Reconceptualising poetry as a multimodal genre. TESOL Quarterly
49(3).510-532.
New London Group (2000) Cope & Kalantzis, 2000
Nomnian, S. (2022). Emergency remote teaching and learning in a language and intercultural
communication program during the “new normal” in Thai higher education. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 18(Special Issue 1), 108-126.
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. Routledge.
Norris, S. (Ed.). (2011). Multimodality in Practice: Investigating Theory-in-Practice- through-
Methodology. Routledge.
Norris, S. (2022). Multimodal Interaction Analysis. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0814.pub2
Ntombela, N. F. (2021). The determinants of effective computer mediated communication between
lecturers and students at a tertiary education institution. [Master’s Thesis] University of Kwazulu-
Natal. https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/6927.
Nugroho, A. D. (2009). The generic structure of print advertisement of Elizabeth Arden’s INTERVENE:
A multimodal discourse analysis. k@ta, 11(1), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.11.1.70-84.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw.
Oberne, A. (2017). I can cee you! using videos in online courses to promote student engagement. Journal
of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 6(1), 85-90.
OECD (2016), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en
O’Doherty, D., Dromey, M., Lougheed, J., Hannigan, A., Last, J., and McGrath, D. (2018) Barriers and
solutions to online learning in medical education – an integrative review. BMC Medical Education
18, (130). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1240-0.
O'Halloran, K. L. (Ed.). (2004). Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives. A&C
Black.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): constructing
ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication 7(443).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208096210.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2011b). Multimodal analysis and digital technology. In A. Baldry and E. Montagna
(Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Multimodality: Theory and Practice, Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Multimodality, (pp. 21-34) Palladino.
O’Halloran K. L. (2009b). Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA) approach to
mathematics, grammar and literacy. In A McCabe, M O’Donnell & R Whittaker (Eds.) Advances
in Language and Education. (pp. 77–102) Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland and B. Paltridge (Eds.) Bloomsbury
companion to discourse analysis. (pp. 120-137) Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2015). The language of learning mathematics: A multimodal perspective. The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.09.002.
O’Halloran, K. L. & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2011). Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains.
Routledge.
Oliveira, J. (2007, October 2). Interest shapes the world: the motivated sign. Learning as Representation.
https://learningasrepresentation.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/interest-shapes-the-world-the-
motivated-sign/.
324
Olpak, Y. Z., & Çakmak, E. K. (2018). Examining the reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the
community of inquiry survey. Online Learning, 22(1), 147-161.
https://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.990.
Olpak, Y. Z., Yagci, M., & Basarmak, U. (2016). Determination of Perception of Community of Inquiry.
Educational Research and Reviews, 11(12), 1085-1092.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2758.
Oppenheim, A. N. (2000). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing And Attitude Measurement. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Øvad, T., & Larsen, L. B. (2015). The prevalence of UX design in agile development processes in industry.
Proceedings - 2015 Agile Conference, Agile 2015. pp. 40–49 IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2015.13.
Pang, M. (2016). Pedagogical Reasoning in EFL/ESL Teaching: Revisiting the Importance of Teaching
Lesson Planning in Second Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 246–263.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43893814
Papanikolaou, K., Gouli, E., & Makri, K. (2014). Designing pre-service teacher training based on a
combination of TPACK and Communities of Inquiry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116(2014), 3437-3442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.779.
Papanikolaou, K., Makri, K., & Roussos, P. (2017). Learning design as a vehicle for developing TPACK
in blended teacher training on technology enhanced learning. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-
0072-z.
Papen, U., & Peach, E. (2021). Picture books and critical literacy: Using multimodal interaction analysis
to examine children's engagements with a picture book about war and child refugees. The
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 44(1), 61-74.
Pappas, C. (2014, February 5). Cognitive load theory and instructional design.
http://elearningindustry.com/cognitive-load-theory-and-instructional-design.
Parahoo K. (1997). Nursing Research: Principles, Process And Issues. Macmillan.
Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications
Paulsen, M. F. (1995). The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for Computer-Mediated
Communication. Treider College. https://www.stangl-
taller.at/paedpsych/PAEDPSYCH/NETSCHULE/NETSCHULELITERATUR/Paulsen95.html
Paulus, T., Warren, A., & Lester, J. N. (2016). Applying conversation analysis methods to online talk: A
literature review. Discourse, Context & Media, 12, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.04.001
Pederson, R., & Myers, J. (2021). Critical Literacy and Semiotic Juxtaposition: The Possibilities of
Multimodal Pedagogy in Korea. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media 22(2).
73-92. https://doi.org/10.16875/stem.2021.22.2.73.
Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. (J. Buchler, Ed.). Dover Publications.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893-1913). (The
Peirce Edition Project, Ed.). Indiana University Press.
Peirce, C. S. Collected Writings (8 Vols.). (1931–58). (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A., Eds.). Harvard
University Press.
Pham, A. T. (2022). What makes a good EFL teacher: A reference for language teacher education. Journal
of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(Special Issue 1), 150-159.
Pham, N. T., & Van Nghiem, H. (2022). Online Teaching Satisfaction amid the Covid-19 Pandemic:
Evidence from a Vietnamese Higher Education Context. International Journal of TESOL &
Education, 2(1), 310-326.
325
Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online
Learning, 21(3), 166-190. http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225.
Pinandito, A., Az-zahra, H. M., Fanani, L., and Putri, A. V. (2017). Analysis of web content delivery
effectiveness and efficiency in responsive web design using material design guidelines and User
Centered Design. In 2017 International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and
Technology (SIET) (pp. 435-441). IEEE. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/SIET.2017.8304178.
Pinterest Inc. (2022) Pinterest [Mobile application]. Google Play Store.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pinterest
Polly, D., & Byker, E. (2020). Considering the Role of Zone of Proximal Development and Constructivism
in Supporting Teachers’ TPACK and Effective Use of Technology. Revista de Educación a
Distancia (RED), 20(64). Artic. 5. https://doi.org/10.6018/red.408661
Ponzio, C. M. & Deroo, M. R. (2021) Harnessing multimodality in language teacher education: expanding
English-dominant teachers’ translanguaging capacities through a Multimodalities
Entextualization Cycle, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1933893
Pool, J., Reitsma, G., & van den Berg, D. (2017). Revised community of inquiry framework: Examining
learning presence in a blended mode of delivery. Online Learning, 21(3), 153-165
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v%vi%i.866.
Poulsen, S. V., & Kvåle, G. (2018). Studying social media as semiotic technology: a social semiotic
multimodal framework. Social Semiotics, 28(5), 700-717.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1505689.
Priss, U. (2022). A semiotic perspective on polysemy. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence,
1(14). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-022-09795-1
Psoinos, D. I. (2021). Adapting Approaches and Methods to Teaching English Online. Springer, Cham.
Psycharis, G., & Morgan, C. (2012). Networking constructionism and social semiotics in order to
investigate students’ bodily engagement with tasks in three-dimensional space. In C. Kynigos,
Clayson, J., & Yiannoutsou, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Constructionism 2012 Conference (pp.
510-519). Athens.
Purwandari, E. P., Junus, K., & Santoso, H. B. (2022). Exploring E-Learning Community of Inquiry
Framework for Engineering Education. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 619-632.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15135a.
Qin, L. (2022). The “Wrong Love” Between the Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding: An
Interview With Prof. James P. Lantolf. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(1), 138-149.
https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0110.
Reams, P. & Twale, D. (2008). The promise of mixed methods: discovering conflicting realities in the data.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(2), 133-142.
Reed, C. E. (1973). Adapting TESL approaches to the teaching of written Standard English as a second
dialect to speakers of American Black English Vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 289-307.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3585677.
Reinhold, F., Schons, C., Scheuerer, S., Gritzmann, P., Richter-Gebert, J., & Reiss, K. (2021). Students’
coping with the self-regulatory demand of crisis-driven digitalization in university mathematics
instruction: do motivational and emotional orientations make a difference? Computers in Human
Behavior, 120, 106732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106732.
Reyes-Torres, A., & Raga, M. P. (2020). A multimodal approach to foster the multiliteracies pedagogy in
the teaching of EFL through picturebooks: The Snow Lion. Journal of the Spanish Association
for Anglo-American Studies, 42(1), 94-119. https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2020-42.1.06.
Rezaei, S., Yeo, V., & Goh, S. K. (2017). Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward
online food delivery (OFD) services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 35(2017) 150-
162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.013
326
Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning:
Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language teaching, 47(2), 135-173.
Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening Comprehension: Approach, Design, Procedure. TESOL Quarterly 17(2).
219-240. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586651.
Richards, J. C. (2014). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Farrell, T.S.C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers. Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Farrell, T.S.C. (2007). 外语教师专业发展的有益方略 – 语言教师专业发展:
教师学习策略 介绍. 外语教学与研究: 外国语文双月刊, 39(2), 157-159.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96946x/2007002/24258368.html.
[Richards, J.C. & Farrell, T.S.C. (2007). Beneficial Strategies for Foreign Language Teachers'
Professional Development –Introduction to Language Teachers' Professional Development:
Teachers' Learning Strategies. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 39(2), 157-159.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96946x/2007002/24258368.html.]
Richards, J. C. & Farrell, T.S.C. (2011). Practice teaching: a reflective approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, M. (2000). Be a good detective: Solve the case of oral reading fluency. The Reading Teacher,
53(7), 534-539. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20204836.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’
perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864.
Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K. P., & Garrison, D. R. (2012).
Using the community of inquiry framework to inform effective instructional design. In L. Moller
& J. B. Huett (Eds.) The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained Learning. Springer.
(pp. 97-125).
Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C. M. (2015).
Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256-297.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2123.
Richardson, J. C., Besser, E., Koehler, A., Lim, J., & Strait, M. (2016). Instructors’ perceptions of instructor
presence in online learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 17(4), 82-104. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2330.
Riff, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in
research. Routledge.
Rilling, S., Dahlman, A., Dodson, S., Boyles, C., & Pazvant, O. (2005). Connecting CALL theory and
practice in preservice teacher education and beyond: Processes and products. Calico Journal,
22(2), 213-235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24147978
Ritter, J. K., Ayieko, R., Vanorsdale, C., Quiñones, S., Chao, X., Meidl, C. J., Mahalingappa, L., Meyer,
C. K., and Williams, J. A. (2019). Facilitating pedagogies of possibility in teacher education:
Experiences of faculty members in a self-study learning group. Journal of Inquiry and Action in
Education, 10(2), 134-157. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol10/iss2/7.
Rodríguez Moreno, J., Agreda Montoro, M., & Ortiz Colon, A. M. (2019). Changes in teacher training
within the tpack model framework: a systematic review. Sustainability, 11(7), 1870.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071870.
Rolima, V., Ferreiraa, R., Linsa, R. D., & Gaševicc, D. A Network Analytic Approach to Uncovering the
Relationship between Social and Cognitive Presences in Communities of Inquiry. Internet and
Higher Education, 42(), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.05.001.
327
Roskos, K., Jarosewich, T., Lenhart, L., & Collins, L. (2007). Design of online teacher professional
development in a statewide Reading First professional development system. The Internet and
Higher Education, 10(3), 173-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.06.004.
Rothkopf, R. R., Janis, A. J. M., Dabov, T. (2016) Flexible display devices. (United States patent No. US
9,504,170 B2) Google Patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9504170B2/en.
Rounds, P. L. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training.
TESOL quarterly, 21(4), 643-671.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous,
text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content
analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 12(1), 8-22. http://hdl.handle.net/2149/715.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature (Winner
2009 Best Research Article Award). International Journal of E-Learning & Distance
Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 23(1), 19-48.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79.
Royce, T. (2002), Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy. TESOL
Quarterly, 36(2) 191-205. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588330.
Royce, T. D. (2007). Multimodal Communicative Competence in Second. In T. D. Royce & W. L. Bowcher
(Eds.), New Directions In The Analysis Of Multimodal Discourse, (pp. 361-390). lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Rubadeau, K. (2018). Internal and external forces: Technology uses among English language teacher
educators in South Korea. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5).
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3369
Saçak, B. (2019). Media literacy in a digital age: multimodal social semiotics and reading media. In M. N.
Yildiz, M. Fazal, M. Ahn, R Feirsen & S. Ozdemir (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Media
Literacy Research and Applications Across Disciplines (pp. 13-26). IGI Global.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures Of Social
Action: Studies In Conversation Analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge University Press.
Saedi, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2016). The effects of watching videos in pre-reading on EFL learners’ reading
comprehension and attitudes. TESOL International Journal, 11(2), 15-44.
Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A Theoretical Foundation for the Development of Pedagogical Tasks in Computer
Mediated Communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5–34.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24157092Sandelowski.
Saussure, F. (2011). Course in General Linguistics (P. Meisel & H Saussy, Eds. W. Baskin, Trans.).
Columbia University Press (Original work published 1966).
Savignon, S. J. (Ed.). (2008). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in
teacher education. Yale University Press.
Schmidt, N. A. & Brown J. (2015) Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses: Appraisal and Application of
Research. 3rd ed. Jones and Bartlett.
Schmidt, S. W., Tschida, C. M., & Hodge, E. M. (2016). How faculty learn to teach online: What
administrators need to know. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(1), 1-10.
Schofield, J. W. (2002). Increasing the generality of qualitative research. In A. M. Humberman, & M. B.
Miles, (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. (pp. 171-203). Sage Publications.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274.n8.
328
Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why
instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than
others. Computers & Education, 71, 247-256. https://doi.org/110.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.016.
Schon, D. A. (1968). The Reflective Practitioner. New York.
Schrire, S. (2004)Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science
32, 475–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2518-7
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the material world. Routledge.
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching. Macmillan.
Seale, C. (1999). The Quality of Qualitative Research, Sage.
Seale, C. (2004). Replication/replicability in qualitative research. In M. S. Lewis-Black, A. Bryman & T.
F. Lia (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods, 962-963.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589.n851
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United
States. Babson Survey Research Group.
Seckman, C. (2018). Impact of interactive video communication versus text-based feedback on teaching,
social, and cognitive presence in online learning communities. Nurse Educator 43(1),18-22.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000448.
Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., and Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from
analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe
their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and teacher education, 27(2), 259-267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.009.
Sensevy, G., & Quilio, S. (2002). Les discours du professeur. Vers une pragmatique didactique. Revue
française de pédagogie, 47-56.
Sensevy, G. (2012). About the joint action theory in didactics. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3),
503-516.
Serafini, F., and Clausen, J. (2016). Typography as a semiotic resource. Journal of Visual Literacy, 31(2),
1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2012.11674697.
Shea, P. (2010). A Re-Examination of the Community of Inquiry Framework: Social Network and Content
Analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 10.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the
community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
39(4), 339–361.Shea et al., 2003
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and
the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments.
Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching
presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 127-154.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A & Rangan, P. (2010).
A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis.
The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.002.
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M., Wilds, J., &
Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89-95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.002.
329
through quantitative content-and social network analysis. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 427-461. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1466.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous
college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4),
59-82.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning
community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and higher education,
9(3), 175-190.
Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the
SUNY Learning Network. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61-80.
Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2004). Enhancing student satisfaction through faculty
development: The importance of teaching presence. In J. Bourne and J. C. Moore (Eds.),
Elements Of Quality Online Education: Into The Mainstream, 5, (pp. 39-59) The Sloan
Consortium.
Shih, M. (1992), Beyond Comprehension Exercises in the ESL Academic Reading Class. TESOL Quarterly,
26(2), 289-318. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587007.
Shin, J. K. (2008). Building an Effective International Community of Inquiry for EFL professionals in an
Asynchronous Online Discussion Board. [Doctoral Thesis] University of Maryland, Baltimore
County. https://www.proquest.com/openview/d3fab8daa69a0140c43569fdde343233/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
Shin, J. K., (2016). Building a sustainable Community of Inquiry through online TESOL professional
development. In J. Crandall & M Christison (Eds.), Teacher Education and Professional
Development in TESOL. (pp. 145-160) Routledge.
Shishkovskaya, J., Sokolova, E., & Chernaya, A. (2015). “Paperless” foreign languages teaching. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.014.
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M. S., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., & Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Designing
the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley
& Sons.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for The Digital Age. Elearnspace.org.
Singh, U., Nair, C. S., & Watson, R. (2021). The transformation in Higher Education in Australia during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching Strategies and Academic Success: Best Practice in Higher
Education, 11, 37-62.
Skelly, D. A. M. (2019). A Mixed-Methods Study of Applying Andragogical Practices to an Online
TESOL Teacher Training Course at a Midwestern University [Doctoral dissertation]
Lindenwood University.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/9a453438f4d4497eb67d7f70d8b35cd0/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Simon & Schuster.
Smadi, O., Chamberlain, D., Shifaza, F., & Hamiduzzaman, M. (2021). A Community of Inquiry lens into
nursing education: The educators’ experiences and perspectives from three Australian universities.
Nurse Education in Practice, 54, 103114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103114.
Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R., and McPhail, R. (2013) Assessment literacy and student
learning: the case for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’, Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.598636.
Smidt, E., Chau, M. H., Rinehimer, E., & Leever, P. (2021). Exploring engagement of users of Global
Englishes in a community of inquiry. System, 98, 102477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102477
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner Smith, S., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Gozza-Cohen, M., Jian, S., Pickett, A.M.,
Wilde, J., & Tseng, C. H. (2013). Online learner self-regulation: Learning presence viewed
330
So, H. J., Chai, C. S., Drajati, N. A., Natarajan, U., Lee, H., & Wang, Y. (2019). Co-Designing Multimodal
Pedagogical Content Knowledge with Indonesian Teachers. In 27th International Conference on
Computers in Education, ICCE 2019 (pp. 720-728). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in
Education.
Son, J. B. (2011). Online tools for language teaching. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second
Language, 15(1), 1-12.
Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher
Education, 39, 22-32.
Stenbom, S., Hrastinski, S., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2016). Emotional presence in a relationship of inquiry:
The case of one-to-one online math coaching. Online Learning, 20(1), 41-56.
Stenbom, S., Jansson, M., & Hulkko, A. (2016). Revising the community of inquiry framework for the
analysis of one-to-one online learning relationships. International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2068.
Stemler, S. (2000) An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 7(7).
1-6. https://doi.org/10.7275/z6fm-2e34
Stewart, M. K., Hilliard, L., Stillman-Webb, N., & Cunningham, J. M. (2021). The Community of Inquiry
in Writing Studies Survey: Interpreting Social Presence in Disciplinary Contexts. Online
Learning, 25(2), 73-94.
Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: teaching teachers to educate themselves, Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99-112, https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802655524
Stockwell, G. (2010). Effects of multimodality in computer-mediated communication tasks. In M Thomas
& H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning And Teaching With Technology, (pp. 83-
104). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Stockwell, G. (2013). Technology and motivation in English-language teaching and learning. In E. Ushida
(Ed.), International Perspectives On Motivation, (pp. 156-175). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Stockwell, G. (2019). Insights from replication on the factors affecting task engagement in mobile-based
learning activities. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 1(1), 33-51.
https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v1n1.152.
Stockwell, G. (2021). Living and Learning with Technology: Language Learning with Mobile Devices.
English Teaching, 76(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.76.s1.202109.3.
Stockwell, G. (2022). Mobile Assisted Language Learning Concepts, Contexts and Challenges. Cambridge
University Press.
Stockwell, G., & Reinders, H. (2019). Technology, motivation and autonomy, and teacher psychology in
language learning: Exploring the myths and possibilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
39, 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000084.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material
World. Cambridge University Press.
Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K.
Lester Jr. (Ed.) Second Handbook Of Research On Mathematics Teaching And Learning, (pp.
319-370). Information Age Publishing.
Stein, P. and Newfield, D. (2006). Multiliteracies and Multimodality in English in education in Africa:
mapping the terrain, English Studies in Africa, 49(1), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00138390608691341.
Strømman, E. (2021). Crossover literacies: A study of seventh graders’ multimodal representations in texts
about Pokémon Go. Computers and Composition, 59,(2021), 102629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102629.
331
Trends, Issues and Policy Challenges Ahead. Centre For Educational Research And Innovation/
Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development (CERI/OECD)/The Japanese
Ministry Of Education, Culture, Sports, Science And Technology (MEXT). Tokyo, Japan.
Subramanian, P., Zainuddin, N., Alatawi, S., Javabdeh, T., & Hussin, A. (2014). A study of comparison
between Moodle and Blackboard based on case studies for better LMS. Journal of Information
Systems Research and Innovation, 6, 26-33.
Sungur-Gül, K., & Ateş, H. (2021). Understanding Pre-Service Teachers’ Mobile Learning Readiness
Using Theory of Planned Behavior. Educational Technology & Society, 24(2), 44–57.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27004930.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step
towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
Swan, K. P. (2003). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning
And Teaching With Technology, (pp. 151-168). Routledge.
Swan, K. P., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The
community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.) Information Technology And
Constructivism In Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks (pp. 43-57). IGI global.
Swan, K. P.& Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to the
special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2009.11.003.
Swan, K. P., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008).
Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. e-mentor, 2(24).
http://www. e-mentor. edu. pl/artykul/index/numer/24/id/543.
Swan, K. P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Shea, P., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. & Garrison, R. (2008).
Researching Online Communities of Inquiry: New CoI Survey Instrument. In J. Luca & E. Weippl
(Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008 World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 5812-5820). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29188/.
Swan, K. P., & Shih, L. F. (2005, June). The development of perceptions of social presence in online course
discussions. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 836-843). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Symes, C. (2021). Sitting on the fence: A geosemiotic analysis of school perimeters. Linguistic Landscape,
7(1). 60-85.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA (Vol. 724).
Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
Tan, L., Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Zheng, C. P., & Drajati, N. A. (2019). Examining pre-service teachers’
knowledge of teaching multimodal literacies: A validation of a TPACK survey. Educational
Media International, 56(4), 285-299.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. SAGE
Publications
Teh, W. (2021). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the context of online learning: A literature
review. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(2), 65-71.
Teng, M. F. (2020). Effects of cooperative–metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’ writing and
metacognitive awareness. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,(1)17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1835606
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
educational review, 66(1), 60-93.
Stuparich, J. (2001, June 5-6). E-Learning In Australia: Universities and The New Distance Education.
[Keynote Presentation]. 7th OECD/Japan Seminar On E- Learning in Post-Secondary Education:
332
The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Designing social futures In B. Cope & M.
Kalantzis (Eds.). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Psychology
Press.
Thibault, P. J. (1996). Rereading Saussure. The Dynamics of Signs in Social Life. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Thomas E, & Magilvy J. K. (2011) Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal of
Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16(2). 151-155.
Thomas, R.A., West, R.E., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text and
asynchronous video feedback comments The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61-73,
10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.003
Thủy, T. T. H., (2018, November 17). Multimodal instruction in initial teacher training: prospects and
challenges [Paper Presentation]. Teaching & Learning Foreign Languages in Association with
Subject-Matter Content in the Context of International International Integration: Theory and
Practice. Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam.
https://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/67392.
Thủy, N. T. T. (2020). Metacognitive awareness of using reading strategies by TESOL postgraduate intakes
11 and 12 at Ho Chi Minh City open university. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(2),
157-167.
Thymniou, A., & Tsitouridou, M. (2021). Community of Inquiry Model in Online Learning: Development
Approach in MOOCs. In T. Tsiatsos, S. Demetriadis, A. Mikropoulos, & V. Dagdilelis (Eds.),
Research on E-Learning and ICT in Education. (pp. 93-109). Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64363-8_6.
Tinsley, H. E., & Kass, R. A. (1979). The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure
activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 278-291.
Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., & Hernando-Gómez, Á. (2019). Using communities of inquiry
online to perform tasks of higher order learning. In D. B. A. Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (Ed.),
Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Modern Education Delivery (pp. 716-728). IGI
Global.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2018). The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials
Development for Language Teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
Tsang, K. K., & Jiang, L. (2018). Positive emotional experiences in teaching, teacher identity, and student
behaviors: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Schools, 15(2), 228-246.
Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: from social learning theory to social presence theory in a
CMC environment. Journal of network and computer applications, 23(1), 27-37.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M., (2002). The Relationship of Social Presence and Interaction in Online Classes,
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150,
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
Tuckman, B. W. (1972). A four-domain taxonomy for classifying educational tasks and objectives.
Educational Technology, 12(12), 36-38.
Twain, M. (1982). Mark Twain. Greenwich Unabridged Library Classics. Greenwich House.
Unicode Consortium (2021) The Full Emoji List, v.13.1. https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-
list.html.
Valverde-Berrocoso, J., & Fernández-Sánchez, M. R. (2020). Instructional design in blended learning:
Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice. In A. V. Martín-García (Ed.), Blended
Learning: Convergence between Technology and Pedagogy (pp. 113-140). Springer, Cham.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, Music, Sound. Macmillan.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Ten Reasons Why Linguists Should Pay. In P. Levine & R. Scollon (Eds.),
Discourse And Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis, (pp. 7-19) Georgetown University
Press.
333
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005a). Introducing Social Semiotics. Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005b). Typographic meaning. Visual Communication, 4(2), 137-143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205053749.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2006b). Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal, 14(2), 139–
155. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.14.2.06lee.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005c). Multimodality, genre and design. In S. Norris & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Discourse
in Action (pp. 85-105). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203018767.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality in Education: Some Directions and Some Questions. TESOL
Quarterly 49(3). 582-589
Van Leeuwen, T (2011). The Language of Colour: An introduction. Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. and Djonov, E. (2012). Multimodality and Software. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.). The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0834
Van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van Lier, L. (2008) ‘Ecological-semiotic perspectives on educational linguistics’, in B. Spolsky and F.M.
Hult (eds), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, Malden, MA: Blackwell: 596– 604. Van
Manen, M. (1991). The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness (1st ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315417134
Varma, S., Traynor, J., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2022). A mixed methods examination of emotional expression
and its impact on emotion regulation effectiveness in borderline personality disorder. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 75, 101712.
Vásquez, C., & Aslan, E. (2021). “Cats be outside, how about meow”: Multimodal humor and creativity in
an internet meme. Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 101-117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.10.006.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development
community. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001.
Velázquez, B. B., Gil-Jaurena, I., & Encina, J. M. (2019). Validación de la versión en castellano del
cuestionario' Community of Inquiry'. Revista De Educación a Distancia (RED), 19(59). 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.6018/red/59/04
Velverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B., (2020).
Trends in Educational Research about e-Learning: A Systematic Literature Review (2009-2018).
Sustainability, 12(12), 5153; http://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). A comparison between traditional and latent class. In L. Andries
van der Ark, M. A. Croon, and K. Sijisma (Eds.) New Developments In Categorical Data Analysis
for The Social and Behavioral Sciences. (pp. 41-62) Psychology Press.
VoiceThread LLC. (2019). VoiceThread [Web application].
Voogt, J., Tilya, F. & van den Akker, J. (2009). Science Teacher Learning of MBL-Supported Student-
Centered Science Education in the Context of Secondary Education in Tanzania. Journal of
Science Education and Technology 18, 429–438 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9160-8.
Vungthong, S., Djonov, E. and Torr, J. (2017). Images as a Resource for Supporting Vocabulary Learning:
A Multimodal Analysis of Thai EFL Tablet Apps for Primary School Children. TESOL Quarterly,
51(1) 32-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.274.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard
University Press.
334
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Problems of the theory and history of psychology the collected works of LS
Vygotsky 3 (R.W. Rieber & A. S. Carton, Eds. N. Minick, Trans.) Springer Science & Business
Media. (Original work published 1983)
Walker, R. (1985). Applied Qualitative Research. Gower
Wallwisher Inc. (2022) Padlet [Web application].
Walsh, S. (2006a). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2006b). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT journal, 60(2), 133-141.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci100.
Walters, K., & Henry, P. (Eds.). (2019). Fostering multiple levels of engagement in higher education
environments. IGI Global.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal
interaction. Communication research, 23(1), 3-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.
Warschauer, M., & Cook, J. (1999). Service learning and technology in TESOL. Prospect-Adelaide, 14(3),
32-39.
Wasilik, O., & Bolliger, D. U. (2009). Faculty satisfaction in the online environment: An institutional study.
The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 173-178.
Webb, H. W., Gill, G., & Poe, G. (2005). Teaching with the case method online: Pure versus hybrid
approaches. Decision sciences journal of innovative education, 3(2), 223-250.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2005.00068.x.
Wester, F., Pleijter, A., & Renckstorf, K. (2004). Exploring newspapers' portrayals: A logic for interpretive
content analysis. The European Journal of Communication Research 29(4), 495-513.
https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2004.29.4.495.
Wever, B.D., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Keer, H.V. (2006). Content Analysis schemes to analyze
transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1),
6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies
published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(3), 315-343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114.
Willis, J., (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Longman.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2013). Doing task-based teaching – Oxford handbooks for language teachers.
Oxford University Press.
Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice. Language
Teaching, 43(3), 259-296. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000030
Wu, Y. T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research: A
review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(3).
Xin, C. (2012). A Critique of the Community of Inquiry Framework. International Journal of E-earning &
Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance 26(1).
https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/755.
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How
does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220601118503
Yerby, J. (2017) An Analysis of Presence in an Asynchronous Online Undergraduate Mastery Course
Using Structural Equation Modelling [Doctoral thesis] Georgia State University.
https://doi.org/10.57709/10113410Yu & Richardson 2015
335
Yeldham, M. (2021). Second language listening instruction and learners’ vocabulary knowledge.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, [Advance online publication].
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0021.
Yi, Y., & Angay-Crowder, T. (2016). Multimodal Pedagogies for Teacher Education in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly 50(4) 988-998. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.326.
Yin, R. K., (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods Series.
(2nd ed.) Sage Publications Inc.
Young, D. J. (1991). Activating Student Background Knowledge in a Take Charge Approach to Foreign
Language Reading. Hispania, 74(4), 1124–1132. https://doi.org/10.2307/343781.
Yuan, R. (2018). " Practice What I Preach": Exploring an Experienced EFL Teacher Educator's Modelling
Practice. TESOL quarterly, 52(2), 414-425.
Zieber, M. (2019, June). The process of instructor orientation and socialization to the Moodle LMS in a
post-secondary context. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. (pp. 132-140). Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory and practice. In J. L. Liontas (Ed.),
The TESOL encyclopaedia of English language teaching. Wiley Online Library. (pp. 1-8).
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0803.
Zhao, S., Djonov, E., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Semiotic technology and practice: A multimodal social
semiotic approach to PowerPoint. Text & Talk, 34(3), 349-375. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-
0005.
Zhao, S., & van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Understanding semiotic technology in university classrooms: A social
semiotic approach to PowerPoint-assisted cultural studies lectures. Classroom Discourse, 5(1),
71-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2013.859848.
336
Appendix A – Ethics Documentation
Instructor-Participants Based in Korea & Australia
Department of Linguistics
Faculty of Human Sciences
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY NSW 2109
Phone: +61 (0)459 716 964
Email: stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au
Chief Investigator’s / Supervisor’s Name & Title: Dr. Helen Slatyer (helen.slatyer@mq.edu.au)
Co-investigator/Associate Supervisor’s Name & Title: Dr. Emilia Djonov (emilia.djonov@mq.edu.au).
Associate Investigator’s Name & Title: Mr. Stafford Lumsden (stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au)
Participant Information and Consent Form
Name of Project: Towards a Multimodal Community of Inquiry Framework
You are invited to participate in a study of online teaching and learning practices among TESOL educators. The purpose of the
study is to provide educators with a set of professional development tools that will aid them to build and deliver TESOL courses
online that embed increased opportunities for student engagement into subject design.
The study is being conducted by Stafford Lumsden to meet the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) under
the supervision of Dr. Helen Slatyer of the Department of Linguistics and Dr Emilia Djonov of the Department of Education,
Macquarie University, NSW, Australia.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to
1. Provide the researcher with access to your online learning environment in the 2nd teaching session/semester of
2020
2. Provide a link in your online learning environment to a survey instrument for your students to respond to in the
last two weeks of subject in the 2nd teaching session/semester of 2020
3. Participate in an approx. 1-hour interview with the researcher, and
4. Complete a self-paced Online Teaching and Learning in TESOL professional development course
5. Develop your online learning environment in preparation for the 1st teaching session/semester in 2021,
incorporating any ideas from the workshop that you deem relevant
An audio recording and transcription will be made of the interview which can be made available to you. The professional
development session will be videoed, and a copy can also be made available to you. A summary of the findings of this study will
be made available to you. There are no anticipated risks to you if you choose to participate in this study.
Any information or personal details gathered in the course of the study are confidential, except as required by law. No individual
will be identified in any publication of the results. However, you can choose to be identified in subsequent publications and
presentations based on the results of the study. Only the researcher and their supervisory panel will have access to the data collected.
Data obtained in this study may be used in future Human Research Ethics Committee approved projects.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary: you are not obliged to participate and if you decide to participate, you are free to
withdraw at any time without having to give a reason and without consequence.
I, have read (or, where appropriate, have had read to me) and understand the information above
and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this research, knowing that I can
withdraw from further participation in the research at any time without consequence. I have been given a copy of this form to keep.
Participant’s Name:
(Block letters)
Investigator’s Name: STAFFORD LUMSDEN
(Block letters)
Participant’s Signature:
Investigator’s Signature:
Date:
Date: 26 of August 2020
The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have
any complaints or reservations about any ethical aspect of your participation in this research, you may contact the Committee
through the Director, Research Ethics & Integrity (telephone (02) 9850 7854; email ethics@mq.edu.au). Any complaint you make
will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome.
(INVESTIGATOR'S [OR PARTICIPANT'S] COPY
337
Student-Participants Based in Korea
Department of Linguistics
Faculty of Human Sciences
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY NSW 2109
Phone: +61 (0)459 716 964
Email: stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au
Chief Investigator’s / Supervisor’s Name & Title: Dr. Helen Slatyer (helen.slatyer@mq.edu.au)
Co-investigator/Associate Supervisor’s Name & Title: Dr. Emilia Djonov (emilia.djonov@mq.edu.au).
Associate Investigator’s Name & Title: Mr. Stafford Lumsden (stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au)
설문지 참가 정보 및 동의서
연구 과제: Towards a Multimodal Community of Inquiry Framework
본 연구자는 온라인 TESOL 교육에 대한 설문을 실시하고 있습니다. 이 연구의 목적은 TESOL 교육자들이 학생들에게
효과적인 온라인 TESOL 교육을 할 수 있는 방안을 마련하기 위함 입니다.
이 연구는 철학 박사 학위를 위해 Stafford Lumsden 이 Macquarie University 의 언어학 박사 Helen Slatyer 교수와 교육학
박사 Emilia Djonov 교수의 감독하에 위와 같은 주제를 연구하기 위해 실시되었습니다.
귀하께서 참여하시는 설문은 온라인 TESOL 수업에 대한 내용으로 15 분 정도 소요됩니다. 구글 클래스룸에서 설문 조사
링크를 찾으실 수 있습니다. 귀하께서 구글 클래스룸에 작성하신 코멘트도 연구에 포함됩니다.
설문에 대한 귀하의 답변 및 귀하의 이름과 개인 정보는 비밀이 보장됩니다. 이 연구에 참여하게 되었을 때, 비밀이 확실히
보장됨을 다시 한번 알려드립니다. 귀하의 정보는 설문 조사와 구분되어 귀하의 답변과 연결되지 않습니다.
연구 과정에서 수집된 모든 정보 및 개인 정보는 법에서 요구하는 경우를 제외하고 기밀로 유지됩니다. 연구 결과물에도
귀하의 개인 정보를 확인할 수 없습니다. 연구원과 감독자만이 귀하의 정보에 접근할 수 있습니다. 귀하께서 데이터의
결과를 요청하시면, 요약한 결과를 이메일을 통해 받으실 수 있습니다. 이 연구의 진행 및 결과는 향후 연구윤리위원회
승인에 사용될 수 있습니다.
설문에 참여하는 것은 전적으로 자발적인 것입니다. 참여할 의무가 없으며 참여하였더라도 언제든지 중지할 수 있습니다.
이메일 연락처:
숙명 TESOL Kara Waggoner: kara.waggoner@sookmyungtesol.info
믹과리대학교 Stafford Lumsden: stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au
언어학 박사 Helen Slatyer: helen.slater@mq.edu
나, 는 위의 정보를 읽었으며 (읽어주는 것이 적절하다면 읽어 주었을 때), 위의 정보를 이해하고 내가
질문한 내용에 만족하는 응답을 받았습니다. 결과에 아무런 영향을 미치지 않고 언제든지 설문 참여를 중지할 수 있음을
알고 이 설문에 참여하는 것에 동의합니다. 나는 이 양식의 사본을 보관해 두었습니다.
다음에서 적용되는 모든 사항을 확인하십시오.
포럼 데이터 수집에 동의합니다
설문 조사에 동의합니다
지원자 이름: _______________________
지원자 서명: _______________________
날짜: 20 년 월 일
연구자: STAFFORD LUMSDEN
서명:
날짜: 2020 년 8 월 27 일
이 연구의 윤리적 측면은 Macquarie University 연구윤리위원회에 승인되었습니다. 이 연구에 참여한 윤리적 측면에 대해
의견이 있을 경우, 연구 담당자(전화 +61 2 9850 7854; 이메일 ethics@mq.edu.au)를 통해 위원회에 연락할 수 있습니다.
귀하께서 제기하신 모든 불만 사항은 확실히 처리되고 조사되며 그에 따른 결과를 확인할 수 있습니다.
338
Student-Participants Based in Australia
Department of Linguistics
Faculty of Human Sciences
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY NSW 2109
Phone: +61 (0)459 716 964
Email: stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au
Chief Investigator’s / Supervisor’s Name & Title: Dr. Helen Slatyer (helen.slatyer@mq.edu.au)
Co-investigator/Associate Supervisor’s Name & Title: Dr. Emilia Djonov (emilia.djonov@mq.edu.au).
Associate Investigator’s Name & Title: Mr. Stafford Lumsden (stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au)
Participant Information and Consent Form
Name of Project: Towards a Multimodal Community of Inquiry Framework
You are invited to participate in a study of online teaching and learning practices among TESOL educators. The purpose of the
study is to provide TESOL educators with a set of professional development tools that will help them deliver more effective
TESOL courses online to students like you.
The study is being conducted by Stafford Lumsden to meet the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
under the supervision of Dr. Helen Slatyer of the Department of Linguistics and Dr Emilia Djonov of the Department of Education.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a 15-minute survey about your experience in two of your TESOL
subjects. You will find a link to the survey on each of your iLearn subject sites. Your posts in the different forums on iLearn will
also be included in the data collected for this project.
Your answers to the survey and will be anonymous and your name and identifying information will be removed from forum
posts. there are no anticipated risks to you if you choose to participate in this study. If you complete the surveys, you will go into
the draw to win a AUD$50.00 gift card, pursuant to Macquarie University policy on remuneration. Your details will be stored
separately from the survey so that they can’t be linked to your responses.
Any information or personal details gathered in the course of the study are confidential, except as required by law. No individual
will be identified in any publication of the results. Only the researcher and their supervisory panel will have access to the data.
A summary of the results of the data can be made available to you on request via email. Data obtained in this study may be used
in future Human Research Ethics Committee approved projects.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary: you are not obliged to participate and if you decide to participate, you are free to
withdraw at any time without having to give a reason and without consequence.
If you have any questions about this study you can contact Stafford Lumsden (stafford.lumsden@hdr.mq.edu.au)
If you have any concerns about this study, you can contact any of the following confidentially:
Dr. Helen Slatyer (helen.slatyer@mq.edu.au)
Dr. Emilia Djonov (emilia.djonov@mq.edu.au)
I, have read (or, where appropriate, have had read to me) and understand the information above
and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this research, knowing that I can
withdraw from further participation in the research at any time without consequence. I have been given a copy of this form to keep.
Please check all that apply from the following:
1. I consent to having forum posts and comments collected
2. I consent to participate in the survey
Participant’s Name:
(Block letters)
Investigator’s Name: STAFFORD LUMSDEN
(Block letters)
Participant’s Signature:
Investigator’s Signature:
Date:
Date: 26 of August 2020
The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee. If you
have any complaints or reservations about any ethical aspect of your participation in this research, you may contact the Committee
through the Director, Research Ethics & Integrity (telephone (02) 9850 7854; email ethics@mq.edu.au). Any complaint you
make will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome.
(INVESTIGATOR'S [OR PARTICIPANT'S] COPY)
339
Appendix B – Indicators of Presence
Table B.1 Indicators of Teaching Presence
Sub-category Indicator Definition Examples
Design &
Organisation
Setting curriculum and
communicating
assessment methods
Communicates important course learning objectives and subject
learning outcomes through documentation, rubrics and setting
expectations
This week we will be discussing... Please refer to your
discussion rubric
Designing methods Clear, concise, instructions that are checked for student
understanding I am going to divide you into groups, and you will debate
Establishing time
parameters
Communication of important dates and time frames for learning
activities to help students keep pace and promote self-regulation Please post a message by Friday
Effective utilisation of
the medium
Students are assisted to take advantage of the affordances of the
online environment to enhance their learning experience.
Models and opportunities to practice using LMS features are
provided
Try to address issues that others have raised when you post
Adherence to
behavioural norms
online
Students are provided models and opportunities to practice
behaviours acceptable in online learning environments
When you submit your written assignment first save your file as
a word document then attach it to the drop box for this module.
Facilitating
Discourse
Making macro-level
comments about the
subject/unit
Provides rationale for topics and assessments.
Explicit connections made between tasks and learning outcomes
at the class/week/module, subject/unit, and course-level
This discussion is intended to give you a broad set of tools
which you will be able to use in deciding when and how to use
different research technique
Identifying areas of
dis/agreement
Helps to identify areas of dis/agreement on unit/subject topics
in order to enhance student learning
Joe, Mary has provided a compelling counterexample to your
hypothesis.1
Seeking to reach
consensus
Assists in guiding students towards agreement on subject/unit
(and course) topics in a way that enhances students’ learning
experience
I think that Joe and Mary are saying essentially the same thing.
Encouraging,
acknowledging or
reinforcing student
contributions
Acknowledges student participation in the subject/unit by
replying positively to messages and posts in a positive manner Thank you for your insightful comments....
Setting the climate for
learning
Encourages students to explore concepts in the course, e.g.,
promotes the exploration of new ideas
Don't feel self-conscious about “thinking out loud” on the
forum. This is the place to try out ideas after all
1 Coupled with “Would you care to respond?” would make this an example of “Drawing in participants”.
340
Sub-category Indicator Definition Examples
Drawing in participants
and promoting
discussion
Helps keep students engaged and participating in productive
dialog Any thoughts on this issue?
Presenting follow-up
topics for discussion on
an ad hoc basis
Presents content or questions, i.e. tangential or related Bates says.... What do you think?
Re-focusing discussion
on specific issues
Helps focus discussion on relevant issues, keeps participants on
topic
I think that's a dead end. I would ask you to consider…; Be sure
to address the differences between theory and practice.
Summarising discussion Reviews and summarizes discussion contributions to highlight
key concepts and relationships to further facilitate discourse
The original question was.... Joe said...Mary said... We
concluded that...We still haven't addressed....
Direct
Instruction
Providing valuable
analogies
Attempts to rephrase/reformulate course material in ways that
highlight similarities between content assumed to be understood
and new content with the goal of making the material more
comprehensible
“Pump in the heart chamber”
Offering useful
illustrations
Attempts to make course content more comprehensible by
providing examples that are substantive and advance
understanding
My employer uses the following two methods to address the
skills gap...
Conducting supportive
(informative?)
demonstrations
Attempts to make course content more comprehensible through
the exhibition of processes For example — multimedia; links to online demonstrations
Supplying clarifying
information
Attempts to reduce confusion or misconceptions about course
content by providing additional explanations.
Let me provide you with some additional
detail explaining how this staffing process
works with employees who have disabilities.
Making explicit
reference to outside
material
Provides useful information from a variety of sources, e.g.,
articles, textbooks, personal experiences, or links to external
web sites.
I was at a conference with Bates once, and he said.... You can
find the proceedings from the conference at http://www....; you
can also look at...
Adapted from Rourke et al. (2001), Shea et al. (2010), and Swan & Shih (2005).
341
Table B.2 Indicators of Social Presence (Shea et al. 2010)
Sub-category Indicator Definition Examples
Affective
Communication
Expressing emotion Conventional expressions of emotion I’m really annoyed… I’m so happy…
Use of Humour Irony, cajoling, sarcasm, and understatement The banana crop is looking good in Edmonton this
year
Self-disclosure
Present details of life outside of the academic
environment, or expresses likes, dislikes and
preferences
Where I work, this is what we do…
I just don’t understand this question.
Use of unconventional
expressions to express
emotion
Repetitious use of punctuation (separate from
emoticons), conspicuous capital letter use
I just can’t stand it when…!!!; ANYBODY OUT
THERE?!; What does this mean?!? Good idea J
Expressing Values Expression of personal values, beliefs, and attitudes I think it is a necessary evil; I feel our children have
the same rights…
Open
Communication
Continuing a thread Replying inline to message/post (Using the reply
function) rather than starting a new post LMS dependent
Quoting from others’
messages/posts
Using platform tools (or cut & paste) to quote
another post in part or whole LMS dependent
Referring explicitly to
others’ messages/posts
Direct references to information and ideas in others’
posts (other than quotations)
In your message you talked about Moore’s
distinction between…
Asking questions Questions posed; teacher to students, student to
teacher, and between students Anyone else had experience with Blackboard?
Complimenting/expressing
appreciation
Offering compliments on the content contained in
posts I really like your interpretation of the reading.
342
Sub-category Indicator Definition Examples
Expressing agreement Agreeing with the content of other messages I was thinking the same thing. You really hit the nail
on the head.
Expressing disagreement Disagreeing with the content of other messages I don’t think… I think it is different…
Personal advice Offering advice to others The CEC website might have some references.
Group
Cohesion
Vocatives Addressing people using their name I think John made a good point. John, what do you
think?
Addresses or refers to the
group using inclusive
pronouns2
Using pronouns e.g., we, us, and our Our textbook refers to…; I think we veered off
track…
Phatics, salutations and
greetings
Language use that serves only a social function e.g.,
greetings
Hi all; Hi John; That’s it for now; We’re having the
most beautiful weather here…
Social sharing Information that is unrelated to the subject/unit Happy birthday!! To both of you!!
Subject/unit reflection Reflection on the course A good example was the CD-ROM we read about.
2 Note that the COI and the use of the term “Inclusive pronouns” to describe an indicator of group cohesion predates more recent use where we talk about and employ inclusive pronouns to
avoid marginalisation of different communities or to align the use of pronouns with how individuals identify themselves.
343
Table B.3 Indicators of Cognitive Presence (Shea et al. 2010)
Stage Descriptor Indicators Socio-cognitive process Example
Triggering event
Evocative (Inductive)
1. Stimulating curiosity
2. Core organising concept or problem
3. Dilemma or problem that students
can relate to from their experience
or previous study
4. Framing the issue and eliciting
questions or problems that students
see or have experienced
5. Assessing state of students’
knowledge and generating
unintended but constructive ideas
Recognise a problem
1. Presenting background information
that may culminate in a question
2. Presenting a problem/issue It has been argued that the only way to
deliver effective distance education is
through a systems approach. However,
this approach is rarely used. Why do
you think that is?
Sense of puzzlement
•Asking questions
•Messages take discussion in new
directions
Exploration
Inquisitive
6. Understand the nature of the
problem
7. Search for relevant information
8. Search for possible explanations
9. Group tasks e.g., brainstorming
10. Individual tasks e.g., reading
11. Monitoring and managing this
phase in order to take broad views
and understandings and narrow the
focus
Exploration within the online
community
•Unsubstantiated dis/agreement
•Contradicting previous ideas
•Using “good point” or “I agree”
with/out elaboration
•Personal experience is substantiated
•Integration
One reason that I think a systems
approach is seldom used is that it is too
complicated to get cooperation.
Another may be the mind-sets of those
in charge to change practices.
Exploration within a single message
•Multiple ideas presented in one
message
•Doesn’t necessarily follow prompt
Info-exchange
•Personal narratives and descriptions
•Not necessarily related to personal
experience
•Presents facts using appropriate
sources
•Adds points to messages but there is
no systematic justification, defence,
or development
Just thinking out loud; Here’s a
thought; What if; How about; Stab in
the dark…
Suggestion for consideration •Explicit characterisation of the
message as exploration
344
Stage Descriptor Indicators Socio-cognitive process Example
Leaps to conclusions •Offering unsupported opinions
Integration
Tentative
12. Focused and structured stage of
making meaning
13. Deals with the integration of ideas
14. Educator uses eliciting to check
understanding
Integration among students
•References to previous messages
•Substantial dis/agreement e.g. “I
agree because…” and “I disagree
because…”
We also had trouble getting
cooperation. Often the use of new tools
requires new organisational structures.
We addressed these issues when we
implemented a systems approach, and I
think that’s why we were successful.
Integrating ideas and concepts within a
message (responding to a prompt)
•Presentation of a hypothesis
•Although tentative, the hypothesis is
developed, justified, and defensible.
Connecting ideas through synthesis
•Integrating info from more than one
source: texts, articles, personal
experience, other posts and
contributions from peers
Creating solutions •Explicit characterisation of a message
as a solution by one or more students
Resolution
15. Resolution of the dilemma or
problem
16. Reduction in complexity by
constructing a meaningful framework
17. Discovering a contextually
specific solution
18. Confirming or testing phase
19. Direct or indirect action
Indirect application to real-world
solutions
•Providing examples of how problems
were solved
How we solved this problem was…
Defending Solutions •Defending why a problem was solved
in a specific manner
345
Appendix C – Semi-structured Interview Questions Stage 1 & Stage 3
Pre-intervention Stage
General
• How long have you taught “online”?
• Tell me what new skill(s) you had to learn in order to use the iLearn/Moodle effectively for
teaching.
• Tell me about classroom management online.
o How are these issues effectively resolved?
• Describe to me the steps that you took to foster interlearner interaction.
• Tell me about your experiences with respect to the teaching/learning transactions when using
iLearn/Moodle
o How does it differ from your face-to-face classes?
o How does it differ from prior distance learning instructional experiences?
• What are the unique challenges of teaching your discipline across all teaching modalities
(whether face-to-face, e-learning, or point-to-point distance, etc.)?
• How do instructors in your discipline address the unique challenges and pedagogy in the e-
learning environment?
• What unique learning opportunities for your discipline does the online modality afford, which are
not available face-to-face?
• What critical insights into teaching your discipline via e-learning were not covered by the
preceding questions?
• Checklist question – On this list of tools available to educators building their sites you have used
<<name of tool>> can you tell me why?
o Have you considered <<name of tool>>? Why/not?
o What kind of support do you get/know of in relation to this tool?
Teaching Presence
1. What are the important things to communicate through iLearn/Moodle in your course?
a. Why?
2. How do you facilitate discussion in iLearn/Moodle? (forum/Dialogue tool etc.)
a. How do you focus these discussions?
3. How do you help learners explore new concepts?
4. Can you tell me how you deal with giving instructions online?
5. How do you provide feedback online?
a. Do you think you do this in a timely fashion?
Social Presence
• How important is it to get to know your online students?
o Do you think Ss in your online classes (especially external Ss) get to know each other?
• Do you provide a model for interaction for the Ss in your online classes? (e.g. how to disagree in
a forum)
o If you do can you give an example?
o If you don’t – do you think it might be useful?
• Why/not?
• Do you think online discussions are useful?
o Why/not
o Synchronous/asynchronous experience?
o How do you facilitate these?
• Is it important that students are offered an opportunity to introduce themselves online at the
beginning of the course?
346
o Why/not?
o How?
Cognitive Presence
• Do you provide a variety of information sources/additional resources online?
o Why?
o Do you think this is useful?
o Do f2f students benefit from this as well?
• Do you think Ss in your course are better placed to synthesise information (into things like lesson
plans for example) as a result of the stuff you put online?
• Should there be an opportunity for learners to reflect on their learning in the online space?
• What kind of assessment do you undertake with your Ss in the online space?
o Formative
o Formal
Post-intervention Stage
OTL in TESOL
• Can you outline your (brief) experience as an online learner
o Concept check/elicit what participants can recall from the 4 sections
o Can the participant identify and changes to their practice?
▪ Inclusion of specific semiotic resource – why? How?
▪ Desired effect versus perceived usefulness of the change what do you think, have
you got any feedback from students
• Specific changes I have observed from 2019 to 2020
o Elicit why, how etc?
COVID19
1 Changes?
1.1 How?
1.2 Why?
1.3 Differences from previous discussion?
1.4 Student feedback
1.5 Usefulness of professional development course (even though not specifically COVID-related)
Social Presence
2 Is social presence helped by anything in particular?
2.1 Is there anything you do/use in your OLE that helps?
Cognitive Presence
3 Is cognitive presence helped by anything in particular?
3.1 Is there anything you do/use in your OLE that helps?
Teaching Presence
4 Is teaching presence helped by anything in particular?
4.1 Is there anything you do/use in your OLE that helps?
347
Appendix D – Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument (Modified)
The following questions will gather some basic information about you, and how you are completing this
unit/subject.
How old are you?
18-24 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-55 56-60 61+ Prefer not to say
I. What is your gender?
Male Female Other
II. Where do you attend class?
Do you come on campus, meet with your instructor in class, or do you ONLY access the unit/course
via the internet/online? (e.g., you are an interstate student or based outside of Australia).
On campus Online only I don’t know
III. Where do you currently live?
Australia New Zealand
The Pacific Asia
Middle East Europe
North America South America
Antarctica Other
IV. Is English your first language?
Yes No
4.2. If English is your second language, what is your first language? (What is the language you speak most,
e.g., at home?)
V. What is your highest level of education?
High school completion Cert. I, II, III, IV
Diploma/Associates degree Undergraduate degree e.g., Bachelor of Arts
Post-graduate degree e.g., Master of Arts
Other
In this section you will be asked questions about some of the things your instructor does online.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the
following four statements.
• The instructor clearly communicated the important course topics.
• The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.
• The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in online activities (e.g., where and how to
submit assignments).
• The instructor clearly communicated important due dates and time frames for online activities (e.g., dates
for assignments)
For questions 1 – 4, What did the instructor use to communicate important information about the course
online? (Choose all that apply).
1. Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
2. Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
3. Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
348
4. Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
5. Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
6. Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
7. Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
8. Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
9. Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom, etc. to host a webinar)
10. Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
11. Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
12. Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
13. Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
14. I don't know
15. Other
In this section, you will be asked questions about how the instructor facilitated discussion with your
classmates, understanding the concepts in the unit/subject, and how agreements and disagreements about the
content were dealt with online.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following four
statements.
• The instructor helped me to understand where there are agreements and disagreements in the theory in this
course.
• The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me
think about them clearly
• The instructor helped to keep the course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue (e.g.,
in forums/Q&A posts or comments).
• The instructor helped keep students on task in a way that helped me learn.
• The instructor encouraged students to explore new concepts in this course.
• The instructor developed a sense of community among students in this course.
For questions 5 - 10:
What did the instructor use to facilitate discussion between you and your classmates online? Did they use any of the
things below to indicate agreement or disagreement between you and your classmates online? Did the instructor
use any of the following to help you understand the concepts being discussed online? (Choose all that apply)
16. Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
17. Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
18. Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
19. Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
20. Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
21. Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
22. Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
23. Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
24. Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom etc. to host a webinar)
25. Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
26. Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
27. Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
28. Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
29. I don't know
30. Other
In this section, you will be asked questions about how the instructor gives you instructions and provides
feedback online.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following four
statements.
349
• The instructor helped to focus discussion (e.g., in forums) on important topics in a way that helped me to
learn.
• The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses and this was
connected to the course’s goals and objectives.
• The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.
For questions 11 - 13:
What did the instructor use to focus discussion and provide feedback online? (Choose all that apply)
31. Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
32. Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
33. Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
34. Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
35. Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
36. Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
37. Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
38. Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
39. Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom etc. to host a webinar)
40. Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
41. Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
42. Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
43. Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
44. I don't know
45. Other
In this section, you will be asked questions about how the instructor helped you to get to know them and other
students in this unit/subject.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following four
statements.
• Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.
• I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.
• Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.
For questions 14 - 16:
What did the instructor use to help you to know them and other students in this unit/subject? (Choose all that apply)
46. Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
47. Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
48. Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
49. Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
50. Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
51. Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
52. Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
53. Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
54. Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom etc. to host a webinar)
55. Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
56. Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
57. Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
58. Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
59. I don't know
60. Other
In this section, you will be asked questions about your level of comfort communicating online with the instructor
and other students.
350
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following four
statements.
• Overall, I felt comfortable communicating online.
• I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions (e.g., discussing content and theory in forums)
• I felt comfortable interacting with other students in the course (e.g., responding to their posts or asking
questions).
For questions 17 - 19:
What did the instructor use to find out about your level of comfort communicating online with them and other students.
(Choose all that apply)
- Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
- Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
- Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
- Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
- Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
- Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
- Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
- Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
- Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom etc. to host a webinar)
- Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
- Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
- Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
- Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
- I don't know
- Other
In this section you will be asked questions about your level of comfort with building trust between yourself and
your classmates online, and how well the instructor helped you collaborate with other students.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following four
statements.
• I felt comfortable disagreeing with other students while still being professional and maintaining a sense of
trust.
• I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other students.
• Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.
For questions 20 - 22:
What did the instructor use to build your level of comfort and trust between you and your classmates? What did they
do to help you collaborate with other students? (Choose all that apply)
- Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
- Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
- Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
- Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
- Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
- Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
- Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
- Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
- Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom etc. to host a webinar)
- Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
- Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g. in a forum)
- Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
- Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
- I don't know
- Other
351
In this section, you will be asked questions about the kinds of tasks, activities, and assessments you do online in
this unit/subject.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following
four statements.
• Problems and questions posed in the subject increased my interest issues in TESOL
• Subject activities made me curious about theory etc.
• I felt motivated to explore content related to the course
• I used a variety of information sources to explore problems and answer questions posed in this course
• Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me solve content-related questions and problems.
• Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different points of view.
For questions 23 - 28:
What did the instructor use to provide instructions for tasks and help you understand how the concepts discussed
and the assessments used in this unit/subject were relevant? (Choose all that apply)
- Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
- Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
- Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
- Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
- Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
- Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
- Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
- Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
- Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom etc. to host a webinar)
- Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
- Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
- Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
- Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
- I don't know
- Other
In this section, you will be asked about how your understanding of course concepts was built and how knowledge
of this unit/subject could be incorporated into your classroom practice.
Thinking about your experience in this unit/subject, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following four
statements.
• Combining new information helped me answer problems and questions asked in course activities
• Learning activities helped me explain ideas and create solutions
• Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand the most important concepts in this
class.
• I can describe ways to apply the knowledge created in this course (e.g. how this knowledge could be used
in my own [future] English classroom).
• The answers and solutions to course tasks and activities I have found can be applied in my own [future]
English classroom.
• I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or non-class related activities.
For questions 29 - 34:
What did the instructor use to help you deal with questions and understand that the concepts in this unit/subject were
applicable to classroom practice? (Choose all that apply)
- Overall design and organisation of the site (e.g., theme, numbering, headings etc.)
- Typography (e.g., bold or italics; paragraph spacing; colour etc.)
- Layout (e.g., position on the page, visual size, lists etc.)
- Icons and symbols (e.g., an arrow)
352
- Photos and images (e.g., that connected to or summarised a text)
- Graphs, figures, and charts (e.g., that connected to or summarised text)
- Video content (e.g., a YouTube, Vimeo, or an Echo 360 recording)
- Personalised video content (e.g., VoiceThread or Flipgrid)
- Live videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, zoom etc. to host a webinar)
- Audio content (e.g., a voice message, podcast etc.)
- Mentioned people (or you) by name (e.g., in a forum)
- Written Instructions (e.g., for a task or activity)
- Private chat (e.g., Dialogue tool, sending messages using the built-in message function in iLearn/Moodle)
- I don't know
- Other
353
Appendix E – Community of Inquiry Survey Results (Online Teaching &
Learning in TESOL – Professional Development Intervention)
Figure E.1 Design & Organisation (Teaching Presence) – OTL in TESOL
Figure E.2 Discourse Facilitation (Teaching Presence) - OTL in TESOL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
12
11
11
9 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The instructor clearly communicated the important
course topics.
2. The instructor clearly communicated important
course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to
participate in online activities (e.g. where and how to
submit assignments).
4. The instructor clearly communicated important due
dates and time frames for online activities (e.g. dates
for assignments).
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
3
2
2
1
6
3
3
2
2
5
4
11
7
11
9
6
1
2
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5. The instructor helped me to understand where there
are agreements and disagreements in the theory in…
6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class
towards understanding course topics in a way that…
7. The instructor helped to keep course participants
engaged and participating in productive dialogue (e.g.…
8. The instructor helped keep students on task in a way
that helped me to learn.
9. The instructor encouraged students to explore new
concepts in this course.
10. The Instructor developed a sense of community
among students in this course.
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
354
Figure E.3 Direct Instruction (Teaching Presence) - OTL in TESOL
Figure E.4 Affective Communication (Social Presence) - OTL in TESOL
1 1
1
2
3
2
3
3
1
8
8
13
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11. The instructor helped to focus discussion (e.g. in
forums) on important topics in a way that helped me to
learn.
12. The instructor provided feedback that helped me
understand my strengths and weaknesses and this was
connected to the course’s goals and objectives.
13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
1
2
1
2
3
4
4
5
3
6
5
4
6
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a
sense of belonging in the course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some
course participants.
16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent
medium for social interaction.
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
355
Figure E.5 Open Communication (Social Presence) - OTL in TESOL
Figure E.6 Group Cohesion (Social Presence) - OTL in TESOL
3
3
4
2
4
3
11
9
7 2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
17. Overall, I felt comfortable communicating online.
18. I felt comfortable participating in the course
discussions (e.g. discussing content and theory in
forums).
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other students in
the course (e.g. responding to their posts or asking
questions).
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
1
2 3
5
2
5
5
3
5
5
9
1
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other students
while still being professional and maintaining a sense of
trust.
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by
other students.
22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of
collaboration.
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
356
Figure E.7 Triggering Event & Exploration (Cognitive Presence) - OTL in TESOL
Figure E.8 Integration & Resolution (Cognitive Presence) - OTL in TESOL
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
4
5
6
5
6
6
11
10
9
7
8
6
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
23. Problems and questions posed in the subject
increased my interest issues in TESOL.
24. Subject activities made me curious about theory etc.
25. I felt motivated to explore content related to the
course.
26. I used a variety of information sources to explore
problems and answer questions posed in this course.
27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information
helped me solve content-related questions and
problems.
28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me
appreciate different points of view.
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
1
1
2
2
1
2
0
2
5
2
5
4
5
4
9
11
10
9
10
10
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
29. Combining new information helped me answer
problems and questions asked in course activities.
30. Learning activities helped me explain ideas and
create solutions.
31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped
me understand the most important concepts in this
class.
32. I can describe ways to apply the knowledge created
in this course (e.g. how this knowledge could be used in
my own [future] English classroom).
33. The answers and solutions to course tasks and
activities I have found can be applied in my own [future]
English classroom.
34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to
my work or non-class related activities.
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree Strongly agree I don't know/NA
357
Appendix F – Coding Resources
Table F.1 Coder 1 Tally of semiotic resources Class A “Assessments” Page
Semiotic Resource Details Count Notes
Typography
Colour 5
Dark grey (body)
Light grey (post date)
White (banner)
Near white (“Add class comment…”)
Blue (header)
Typeface
Serif 0
Sans Serif 3
Google font
Arial
Whatever font the Hangul is in
Bold 85
Italics 0
Underlined 0
Other 0
Size
Extra Small 0
Small 2 Body
Medium 1 “Y1 Fall 2019”
Large 1 “Classroom Management”
Extra Large 0
Alignment 3
Left
Right
Centre (header hyperlinks)
Line Spacing 1 or 2 One instance of weird spacing in a student comment (noted) but otherwise all single spaced
Indentation
Bullet/Dot Points 3
Numbered list 1
Other 27 Student comments offset from post
Instructions 1 “Management homework for Week 02”
Paragraphs 0
360
358
Chat & Discussion Opportunities
Forum
Instructor Posts 11
Instructor
Comments/replies 1 (visible)
Dialogue tool 0
Hyperlink
Internal 81
External 0 Hard to say internal/external for sure, but if I know anything about Google’s environment, it looks like all
the links would stay contained within the course
Symbols, Indices, & Icons
“Icons” 64
Emojis 23
Images
Chart/figure 0
Photograph 53 All instances of profile pictures. One user’s profile picture is just a plain colour and it appears twice
Drawing/Illustration 32 31 may be icons instead
Video
External (embedded)
Native
External (embedded) 0
Native 0
Personalised video 0
Videoconference 0
Audio
External (embedded) 0
Native 0
359
Figure F.1 Coder 1 Class A “Assessments” Page Markup
360
Table F.2 Semiotic Resources Coding Dictionary
Typography
Think about typography in terms of the kinds of formatting changes you can make to
text in a Microsoft Word document.
In typography, a serif (/ˈsɛrɪf/) is a small line or stroke regularly attached to the end of a
larger stroke in a letter or symbol within a particular font or family of fonts
Serif & Sans Serif
Serif font
Sans Serif
font
Font Style
Bold
Italics
Underlined
Occasionally there may be other font styles such as strikethrough and double
underline. These are rare.
Size
Actual font size is difficult to determine - instead, consider text in terms of small,
medium and large, relative to text around it. For example:
Alignment & Spacing
Left align
361
Right align
Centre
align
Justified
Indentation
Indented
paragraph
Bullet/dot
point list
362
Numbered
list
Paragraphing
Example of paragraphs, this page contains three paragraphs (that use paragraph
indents).
363
Images
Instructional
Discoursal/affective
Aesthetic
Photo
Illustration
Chart /
Diagram
---
Instructional
Discoursal/affective
Aesthetic
Photo
The primary function of this
photo is to provide an index
to the definition of reflective
practice (The contemplative
gaze of the woman indicates
reflection) and is therefore
instructional. This photo has
a secondary aesthetic
purpose.
Photos of faculty are
affective - explicitly used to
"put a face to the name" and
foster social presence.
A photograph with an
aesthetic purpose in the
banner or near the top of an
OLE.
Illustration
This image, from the ABC is
used to illustrate an example
of a non-polarised image
(centre-margins/nucleus-
satellites) and so its primary
function is instructional
This network diagram has
illustrative elements.
Illustration/line drawing -
used aesthetically
Chart /
Diagram
IPA Chart - instructional
purpose
This figure is discoursal,
designed to elicit examples
of how students might
undertake reflective practice
(affective). Because this is
from a TESOL training
program there is also a
(secondary) instructional
element to the figure.
---
364
Icon
Icons are confusing because "icon" has
a slightly different meaning in
semiotics.
However, in all of the OLEs being
examined "icons" (non-semiotic
definition) often accompany text,
especially in headings:
separate icons augmenting links to
readings and a task based on the
reading
These augment the heading, providing
a visual cue to the reader indicating the
type of task or resource they will
encounter below that heading.
Predominantly, this kind of icon use has
a primarily instructional function and a
secondary aesthetic function.
Microphone icon used to augment a
heading for lecture slides and notes.
Emoji
Video
External
(Embedded)
1. YouTube
2. Vimeo
Native
i.e., in the Moodle player.
(Note, in Google Classroom, there is no native video player, instead YouTube
is used and should be considered "external").
Personalised
e.g., VoiceThread, flipgrid, POODLL etc.
(Note, POODLL is a plugin for Moodle allowing anyone with editing
permissions to add short videos to a post. Both instructors and students have
access to POODLL. POODLL is native to Moodle).
Videoconference
1. Adobe connect lounge
2. WebEx (usually a link)
3. Zoom (usually a link)
4. Google Hangouts/Meet (usually a link - sometimes a calendar invite).
Audio
External
(Embedded)
e.g., a SoundCloud player embedded in the OLE.
Native
An example of audio in the native Moodle (iLearn) player
365
An example of audio files uploaded to the OLE than can then be
downloaded by students
Chat & Discussion Opportunities
Moodle
1. Announcements forum
a. Posts
b. Comments/replies
2. "Advanced forum"
a. Posts
b. Comments/replies
3. Dialogue tool
4. Email link to instructor
Google
Classroom
1. Comments
2. Question activities
Hyperlinks
Internal - links internally to another point In the OLE (I will have to check on the live site but take
a guess)
External - links out to an external site and/or resource.
