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.
1
The Relationship Between Teaching Presence and Online Instructor Satisfaction in an
Online Teacher Training Program.
Stafford H. Lumsden
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Research
Department of Linguistics
Macquarie University
October 2017
2
3
Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 5
Statement of Candidate .............................................................................................................. 6
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, Glossary................................................................................. 7
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. 8
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 9
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................10
Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2 Background ...............................................................................................................13
Higher education in the Republic of Korea .................................................................13
The case of Central University ...................................................................................14
Summary ...................................................................................................................19
Chapter 3 Literature Review ......................................................................................................20
Defining online teaching and learning ........................................................................21
Distance learning ...................................................................................................21
E-learning ..............................................................................................................22
Online learning ......................................................................................................23
Towards a context-driven typology of online teaching and learning ........................25
The Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI) and teaching presence .........................26
Cognitive presence .................................................................................................27
Social presence ......................................................................................................28
Teaching presence ..................................................................................................28
Why is teaching presence important? .....................................................................32
Teaching presence and videoconferencing ..............................................................34
Instructor satisfaction .................................................................................................35
Why is online instructor satisfaction important? .....................................................36
Why is the relationship between Online Instructor Satisfaction and Teaching
Presence Important? ...................................................................................................39
Summary ...................................................................................................................41
Chapter 4 Methodology .............................................................................................................42
Introduction ...............................................................................................................42
Case design ................................................................................................................43
Mixed methods ..........................................................................................................45
Methods .....................................................................................................................46
Participants, recruitment, and consent ....................................................................46
Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure ...................................................................46
Interviews ..............................................................................................................48
Observations ..........................................................................................................49
Summary ...................................................................................................................50
Chapter 5 Results ......................................................................................................................51
4
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 51
Participant profiles .................................................................................................... 51
Detailed results - the Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure ..................................... 52
Detailed results - interviews ...................................................................................... 58
Detailed results - observation of online videoconference lessons ............................... 64
Instructional design and organization .................................................................... 64
Facilitating discourse............................................................................................. 66
Direct instruction................................................................................................... 67
Text-based indicators ............................................................................................. 69
Chapter 6 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 73
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 73
Key findings ............................................................................................................. 73
Affordances ........................................................................................................... 73
Instructor-to-student, student-to-student interaction and discourse facilitation ....... 74
Course design/development and teaching, instructional design and organization ... 75
Institutional Support .............................................................................................. 75
RQ1: Is there a relationship between online instructor satisfaction and teaching
presence? .................................................................................................................. 77
RQ2: What is the nature of this relationship?............................................................. 78
Practitioner Implications ....................................................................................... 79
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 79
Future research.......................................................................................................... 80
Chapter 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 81
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 82
List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix 1 Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish Online Learning Typology ........................................... 90
Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish Typology for describing online teaching and learning ...... 90
Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish online learning typology observation/notes form ............. 93
Description of CU modules ....................................................................................... 94
Appendix 2 Summary of themes from participant interviews .................................................... 98
Appendix 3 Ethics Committee Approval, Participant Consent ................................................. 101
Ethics Committee Approval .................................................................................... 101
Participant consent (instructors) .............................................................................. 103
Participant consent (students) .................................................................................. 105
Appendix 4 Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure and Interview Questions.......................... 107
OISM ...................................................................................................................... 107
Interview Questions ................................................................................................ 108
5
Abstract
As the number and frequency of online programs being offered in higher education
continue to increase, so too does the amount of research dedicated to examining and exploring
their impact on learners and learner outcomes. Yet in the literature there is less research
dedicated to examining instructor outcomes in online programs, especially with regard to the
feelings and perceptions of satisfaction instructors derive from their online teaching.
This thesis reports the results of a case study that examined a cohort of instructors
engaged in synchronous, online videoconference instruction in a graduate teacher training
program at a mid-sized private university in Seoul, South Korea. Using a mixed methods
approach, instructor responses gathered from interviews, the Online Instructor Satisfaction
Measure, and observation of videoconference lessons were triangulated to establish whether
or not a relationship might exist between teaching presence and instructor satisfaction with the
aim of describing that relationship.
Overall, the findings presented in this thesis represent an exploration into the impact
of instructor satisfaction on teacher actions in online videoconference contexts. In addition to
finding that satisfied instructors show more teaching presence indicators than instructors who
are not satisfied, two related issues emerged from the case study that have implications for
future research. First, the overall context of the teaching program must be taken into account
when describing online teaching and learning. Second, existing indicators of teaching
presence based on text-based instances of online teaching may need to be revised to take into
account the increased volume of synchronous, videoconference lessons that are quickly
becoming mainstream in online teaching and learning.
Keywords: Community of Inquiry Framework, online instructor satisfaction, teaching
presence, teacher education, synchronous, videoconferencing, South Korea
6
Statement of Candidate
I certify that the work in this thesis entitled “The relationship between teaching presence and
instructor satisfaction in an online teacher education program” 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.
In addition, 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 17 May 2017, reference number:
5201700461.
Stafford Lumsden
9 October 2017
7
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, Glossary
1
A Affordances of the online environment/online teaching and
learning
Asynchronous When students contribute to an online task at disparate times
Blended A program incorporating both online and face-to-face instruction
CD ROM A popular digital storage medium in the late 1990s and early
2000s
CDT Course design/development and teaching
CoI The Community of Inquiry Framework
CMC Computer-Mediated Communication
CU Central University
DF Discourse Facilitation
DI Direct Instruction
IDO Instructional Design and Organization
iNACOL The International Association of K-12 Online Learning
IS Institutional Support
ISI Instructor-to-student Interaction
Korea The Republic of Korea, also referred to as South Korea
LMS Learning Management System
MOOC Massive Open Online Course
OISM Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure
OTL Online Teaching and Learning
RR Revised Romanization (of Korean)
SSI Student-to-student interaction
Synchronous Active exchange of information by people (students/teacher) in
real time
SUNY State University of New York
TEE Teaching English in English
TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
Videoconference Lesson A synchronous lesson delivered via webcam, videoconference
software and/or an LMS
YL Young Learner(s)
1
The accepted or common understanding of abbreviations, acronyms and terms derived from the literature is
used here. In some instances, working definitions for a term emerging from the research are used.
8
List of Tables
Table 1: Description of online learning types by proportion of online content ....................... 23
Table 2: Harasim’s three types of online learning and teaching ............................................. 25
Table 3: Models of teaching roles in computer conferencing ................................................. 29
Table 4: Indicators of instructional design and organization .................................................. 30
Table 5: Indicators of Discourse Facilitation ......................................................................... 31
Table 6: Indicators of direct instruction ................................................................................. 32
Table 7: Definition of constructs in online instructor satisfaction .......................................... 36
9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Summary of Online courses at Central University ................................................. 19
Figure 2: The Community of Inquiry Framework ................................................................. 28
Figure 3: Relationship between Online Instructor Satisfaction and Teaching Presence .......... 40
Figure 4: Research design .................................................................................................... 50
Figure 5: Participant perceptions of instructor-to-student interactions (ISI) in online courses 53
Figure 6: Participant perceptions of the affordances (benefits) that teaching online provides 54
Figure 7: Participant perceptions of institutional support (IS) received while teaching online 55
Figure 8: Participant perceptions of student-to-student interaction (SSI) in online courses .... 56
Figure 9: Participant perceptions of course design/delivery and teaching (CDT) in online
courses ................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 10: Comments and responses from participants that can be categorized as positive or
negative based on word choice and tone ............................................................................... 59
Figure 11: Number of participant interview responses that refer to Bolliger et al.’s (2014)
Online Instructor Satisfaction constructs............................................................................... 60
Figure 12: Ray setting curriculum (IDO) and drawing in participants to promote
discussion/acknowledging student contributions (FD) .......................................................... 66
Figure 13: Martin presents content and questions and summarizes discussion (DI) ............... 68
Figure 14: Teaching presence indicators in videoconference lessons for Esther, Martin,
Michelle, and Ray ................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 15: Teaching presence indicators in videoconference lessons for Esther, Martin,
Michelle, and Ray and in text-based interactions through LMS for Grant ............................. 72
10
Acknowledgements
There are a number of people whom I would like to thank for their efforts, assistance, and
encouragement during the research and writing of this thesis.
To my wife Hwaeryeon, who has supported me throughout while undertaking her own
graduate studies. Together, we have been able to create our little house of scholarly love on
the hill, and I am forever grateful.
I would like to thank my principle supervisor Dr. Helen Slatyer, who has guided me through
the process of conceiving, executing, and finally writing (and re-writing) this thesis. I am
immensely grateful for Dr. Slatyer’s patience with me, and her guiding hand in helping me to
start to think (and write) like a researcher. I would also like to thank Dr. Phil Chappell for
feedback on the literature review portion of this thesis.
I need to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues, who became participants in this study.
Their willingness to open their online classrooms, let alone their hearts and minds, to my
observations and probing questions is a testament to their professionalism and commitment to
our field. I am both humbled and thankful for their invaluable contribution to this study. In
addition, I would like to thank my colleague Eli Miller for help with proofreading and editing.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my examiners Dr. Phil Hubbard (Stanford
University), Professor Glenn Stockwell (Waseda University), and Professor Mike Levy (The
University of Queensland). Their detailed feedback was invaluable for the preparation of the
final version of this thesis.
Additionally, Dr. Yeum Kyungsook, has been enthusiastic since the beginning, and I am
appreciative of her support for this study, and her mentorship of me as a practitioner. I would
also like to thank Dr. David Shaffer who, in addition to being a dynamo of output I would do
well to emulate, is someone who cares deeply about our profession and its role in modern
Korean society.
Finally, I need to thank Dr. Z. Ksan Rubadeau who gave me the confidence to pursue further
study and a higher degree. Thank you.
11
Chapter 1 Introduction
The number and frequency of online programs being offered in higher education
contexts continues to increase. As a result, research examining the impact of online learning,
and on learners and learner outcomes has also increased. Less research, however, has been
dedicated to examining instructor outcomes. Research that focuses on the feelings and
perceptions of satisfaction that instructors derive from their participation in online teaching
seems to be absent. While we have come to understand the impact of online learning on
learners and how their perceptions of online learning are shaped, less is known about what
effect online teaching and learning (OTL) has on instructors, and whether there is a
relationship between their satisfaction with online teaching and their teaching presence during
videoconference lessons.
Lichtman (2010) tells us that research and researchers are influenced by their
experiences, knowledge, skills and backgrounds. Thus, it shouldn’t surprise the reader that the
present study is born of my experience as a teacher educator and online instructor, and a
desire to better understand online teaching and learning. I consider myself one of the
“tinkerers” that Hubbard and Levy (2016) refers to when considering the genesis of computer
assisted language learning (CALL) in the early 1980s. In some ways, little has changed since
those early years. Now I am just one of many “tinkerers” that continue to push our field
forward, attempting to utilize the many practical applications of computers and the Internet in
language teaching and applied linguistics. On the other hand, there has been considerable
change since the 1980s. This is exemplified most recently by the ability to incorporate live,
synchronous videoconference lessons into programs at all levels of education. As access to
high speed bandwidth increases, and the cost of hardware like quality microphones and high-
definition cameras decreases, videoconference lessons are becoming an important part of
online programs offered by institutions.
So, it is important to start building our understanding of how videoconference lessons
are being delivered, their influence on instructors’ perceptions of satisfaction, and instructor
actions during lessons. This study seeks to establish if there is a relationship between teaching
presence (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) and online instructor satisfaction. In Chapter 2,
background information is presented, that describes higher education in Korea broadly, and
the case of Central University specifically, where this study was conducted. Chapter 3
examines the literature on online teaching and learning, the Community of Inquiry
Framework and teaching presence, and instructor satisfaction. Chapter 4 considers the
methodological underpinnings of this mixed methods case study and describes the survey,
interviews, and observations that were operationalized for collecting data. Chapter 5 reports
12
that data, while Chapter 6 presents an analysis of the key findings, while considering both the
limitations of the study and possible avenues for further research. As we will come to see,
being able to describe the context in which an instance of online teaching and learning is
happening is key to building a clearer understanding of associated phenomena.
13
Chapter 2 Background
Higher education in the Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) has the fourth highest level of tertiary-educated
adults aged 24-64 in the OECD, some 45.5% (OECD, 2016). There are 339 universities in
South Korea, attended in 2016 by 2.9 million undergraduate students, with a further 330,000
students pursuing post graduate degrees (South Korean Ministry of Education, 2017). There is
also a burgeoning sector within the education industry in Korea that caters to students
engaging in programs which might variously be referred to as lifelong education or
continuing education programs. A diverse range of lifelong education programs is offered by
a combination of private providers and higher education institutions in a variety of fields,
disciplines and subject areas. These include foreign languages, computer science, and English
language teacher (ELT) education. Coombs and Ahmed (1975) categorizes this kind of
educational undertaking as non-formal - some sort of professional development completed as
part of one’s job duties, or indeed, in the pursuit of certification as preparation for a job.
Starting in the early 2000s, the Korean Ministry of Education began to place an
emphasis on Teaching English in English (TEE) whereby English would be the medium of
instruction (MoI) in English classrooms (Park, J., 2009; Park, S. & Abelmann, 2004). This
had a flow-on effect on a number of different education policy areas including pre-service and
in-service teacher education and teacher recruitment (Choi, 2015). In response to this new
emphasis on English as the MoI, one area that has seen growth in lifelong and continuing
education, beyond traditional English language instruction geared towards increasing
proficiency, is ELT education. Graduates of ELT courses go on to find employment as
language instructors in both state-run schools and private institutions (so-called hakwons
2
) or
leverage their newly-minted credentials and skills toward pay rises and promotions. English
education can be termed an ‘industry’ in South Korea, where a considerable percentage of
consumer spending is funnelled into private education (of which language education forms a
large part) (Chung, 2016). Thus, having a credential or certification can set a candidate for a
teaching position apart from other applicants in a saturated and highly competitive education
employment market.
2
Korean names and terms are represented in English here using the Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)
system. Where proper nouns exist in forms not consistent with RR, e.g. family names such as Lee (이) and Park
(박), these are used instead.
14
The case of Central University
It is within this setting that we find Central University (CU)
3
. CU is a medium-sized,
private women’s university in central Seoul, Korea with a student body of 13,020 in 2017
4
and faculty of 470. Although most of the students at CU are women, the university also has
undergraduate, graduate-level, and diploma programs that are open to non-Korean
(international and exchange) students of both genders, and certificate courses that are open to
both genders regardless of nationality. Within the university, the Graduate School of TESOL
provides several certificate-level courses that feed into its Master of Arts in TESOL degree.
Students that complete the 220-hour adult TESOL or young learner (YL) TESOL certificate
programs can transfer credits equal to their first semester of study in either the master’s
program at CU or several other institutions internationally with whom the graduate school has
set up credit transfer agreements. The graduate school additionally offers a TESOL certificate
program aimed at those wishing to teach very young learners, pre-schoolers aged 3-5 years.
In August 2013, the graduate school decided to start offering a blended option for its
adult TESOL and YL TESOL certificates (Rubadeau, 2016), whereby students attend
synchronous videoconference lessons for one third of the course (two out of six modules, or
four out of twelve class hours per week) and attend face-to-face classes for the rest of their
modules. This blended option was first delivered to a group of students in February 2014 and
continues to the present. In August 2014, following the first semester of the blended program,
a videoconference-based, synchronous, 12-week, 100-hour program was developed in
cooperation with a publishing company to complement a commercially-developed teaching
knowledge assessment. This agreement has since ended and the graduate school now offers an
internally developed, 12-week, 100-hour course.
South Korea is well-known for its Internet infrastructure. Indeed, as early as 2002,
Seoul was labelled “the bandwidth capital of the world” (Jordan & Whitney, 2016), while in
2015 the OECD ranked the country first in terms of broadband Internet service (OECD, 2015
in Shin & Suh (2016)). This has meant that South Korea has often been among the first
countries to adopt web-based technologies for educational purposes. Indeed, CU features in
the literature as one of the first universities in the country to offer teacher training online to
over 100 general English, TESOL, and music therapy instructors as early as 1998 (Jung,
2001).
3
Pseudonyms have been used for individuals and organizations to maintain confidentiality.
4
Here, I have avoided citing the source of this statistic to further preserve the anonymity of the university and
the participants in the study.
15
The student population of CU’s TESOL certificate programs is largely homogeneous.
When looking specifically at the online programs, 100% of students are of Korean ethnicity
and female, ranging in age from 25-50 years. Their English language proficiency ranges
between B2 and C2 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (with
B2 being the minimum proficiency for entrance into the programs). As discussed below, their
motivations for joining the programs vary, but are consistent with those espoused in the
literature (Hart, 2012; Picciano, 2002). In the following section, each of the modules in CU’s
programs are described using the Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish typology (Lowenthal, Wilson &
Parrish, 2009) detailed in the literature review (Chapter 3). A breakdown of each module,
using the typology, is provided in Appendix 1.
Web-enhanced modules
All of CU’s TESOL certificate courses have some element of web enhancement. Upon
enrolment, students are assigned a CU email address and login details. CU uses Google’s G
Suite for Education
5
, a collection of web-applications for email, word processing,
presentations, online cloud storage and videoconferencing. Students also receive unlimited
cloud storage for the duration of their enrolment as well as access to the department’s learning
management system (LMS) Google Classroom. Instructors create an online “classroom” for
each cohort of students they teach, posting general announcements, setting up discussion tasks
for students to respond to, providing digital versions of documents like course books, reading
packets and handouts, and providing links to multimedia and web-based resources. Instructors
may also assign written assignments and other assessments through the LMS, which students
can complete in-browser and then submit to their instructor. As a result of the various ways in
which the LMS is utilized, the department is 90% paperless.
In web-enhanced courses, 100% of instruction occurs in face-to-face settings, yet
different instructors utilize the affordances of the LMS and associated tools differently. Some
instructors use the LMS as a repository of resources that students access in an ad hoc fashion
as the requirements of the course and assessment dictate. Other instructors will more actively
utilize the LMS, giving students questions to debate in message board posts, and chances to
collaborate with each other on documents using a flipped-classroom model.
With regard to the formality of the courses described here and below, they may be
classified as non-formal (optional), which Lowenthal et al., (2009) notes is a kind of
education undertaken as some sort of professional development. Students in CU’s TESOL
5
An overview of G Suite for Education can be found at https://edu.google.com/products/productivity-tools/
16
certificate programs fall into one of three categories: in-service teachers looking to develop
professionally (potentially making the level of formality required non-formal), pre-service
teachers who have recently completed an undergraduate degree course, and individuals who
are in the process of transitioning careers. The exact motivations of students for enrolling in
the CU TESOL certificate courses are sometimes difficult to discern and are not the focus of
the present study.
In terms of curriculum fit, each web-enhanced course is part of the overall
certificate/credential. In these web-enhanced courses, online work is carried out
asynchronously, encompassing tasks and “homework” for students to complete or prepare by
their next class. The TESOL programs fit within the typical 19-week semester and each
consists of 220 hours of classroom instruction. The development model for these web-
enhanced courses is collaborative, with a team of instructors creating content together, but
individual instructors have significant latitude to introduce other materials, both online and in
face-to-face settings, as required to meet the needs of students. As with all the courses
described here, skills development is the focus, though overall there is a move towards higher
order thinking and authentic performance as students work towards completing teaching
practicum assessments near the end of the semester.
Media integration is variable in these courses depending on the aims of the course and
the needs of students. At the very least, students have access to text-based media, but
instructors often provide supplementary video content and links to other web-based resources
to complement face-to-face instruction. These are provided through the LMS (rather than a
3D world described in the Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish typology). Again, the amount of
instructor engagement is variable, but overall, instructors are probably less engaged in the
online aspects of these courses because they see students in face-to-face settings.
Communication in the LMS is predominantly student-to-instructor with a variable amount of
student-to-student interaction based on the kinds and frequency of collaborative tasks
assigned. The instructors in the CU TESOL programs all receive ongoing professional
development and training in using G Suite for Education and the LMS, and at the time of this
study had all been teaching web-enhanced courses for at least two years (four semesters).
Blended (synchronous) modules
At CU, blended programs follow the same semester timing and curriculum as web-
enhanced programs but are offered to students who are unable to take all the classes in person
due to scheduling or distance from campus. Instead, students complete two modules online in
synchronous videoconference lessons for four hours, one night a week, and attend face-to-
face classes for the remaining eight hours of instruction each Saturday. In these blended
17
courses, there is a significant increase in the prominence of the LMS as it is the main conduit
for instructor-to-student interaction (ISI) as well as communication and collaboration between
students. Additionally, students undertake a significantly higher number of asynchronous
tasks using the LMS in these courses.
As with the web-enhanced programs, the synchronous courses in the blended
programs are modules embedded in a broader credential and fit within the typical 19-week
semester of which 80 hours of instruction are undertaken in synchronous videoconference-
based lessons and 140 hours are done in face-to-face settings. In terms of curriculum and
development, instructors incorporate web and multimedia materials into a course designed in
collaboration with other instructors in the department. From a quality control perspective,
online instructors in CU’s blended courses must create courses that are equal in content and
assessment to the face-to-face versions of the course. This is done by regularly meeting with
the face-to-face instructors and reviewing and revising content at the end of each semester.
The blended modules target skills development with an eye to authentic performance.
For example, students in the Curriculum Design and Lesson Planning course spend time
developing lesson plans for English language lessons in their classes, and then deliver those
lessons in a practicum or peer-teaching setting elsewhere in the program.
Blended courses feature a variety of audio, video, multimedia and-web based content.
In videoconference lessons, instructors are highly engaged and present and attempt to
replicate the kinds of classroom interactions used in face-to-face lessons. In the LMS,
instructors also are highly engaged and present, providing numerous opportunities for
students to collaborate and receive instructor feedback. There is regular communication
between instructors and students, both in real-time during videoconference lessons, and by
text via the LMS. Students in these courses also collaborate with each other online more
frequently than in web-enhanced courses, completing tasks together synchronously and
asynchronously in preparation for lessons.
Instructors teaching blended modules are trained and have a significant amount of
experience teaching online. For example, one of the instructors has taught the same module
online for almost three years (six consecutive academic semesters). Class size in these courses
is limited to 14 students due to the technical limitations of the software being used.
Fully online synchronous modules
Fully online synchronous modules at CU are geared towards students that are both
unable to come to campus due to scheduling or location, who may want to complete a basic
qualification in TESOL as a pathway to further study in one of the other CU TESOL programs.
These modules are completed within an accelerated 12-week semester and total 100 hours.
18
There are no face-to-face components to these programs. In terms of formality, they are
categorized as non-formal (optional). In the lessons described in this study, the development
model is one where instructors are teaching a course designed and developed by another
faculty member. For the most part, the learning target is knowledge formation and text
processing.
In these modules, instructors put a premium on replicating the kinds of classroom
interactions found in face-to-face settings. Likewise, there is an even larger emphasis put on
the use of the LMS since students enrolled in these courses are unlikely to ever be on campus
(except perhaps for graduation). Instructors are highly engaged and present in the LMS and
students make use of email to communicate with instructors, and the instructors are both
trained and experienced in delivering course content. Historically, these fully online
synchronous modules have seen the most diverse student population. Compared to the others
described above, they have seen a larger number of male and non-Korean students. However,
during this study, these courses were made up exclusively of female, Korean students.
Fully online asynchronous modules
CU’s fully online asynchronous modules are non-formal (optional) and are one part of
a larger credential. They are designed to be completed within an accelerated 12-week
semester but are self-paced, with students having to complete the module before the end of
the semester. They are 100% online, completed asynchronously and contain no face-to-face
instruction. There is much less teacher-student and student-student interaction. Students
complete the module by themselves, although collaboration with classmates is encouraged,
while the only interactions with instructors come in the form of feedback on mid-semester and
final writing tasks. Weekly “self-check” quizzes are automatically marked and returned
through the LMS. Targeted learning is solely based on knowledge and memorization of
information. In these modules, multimedia content, encompassing video, audio and text-based
materials, and self-check quizzes are provided through the LMS. The content of the module is
updated and refined at the end of each semester in coordination with the instructors running
and teaching the other fully online modules. The age, gender, and ethnicity make-up of the
students taking these modules is the same as for the fully online synchronous modules
described above.
As Figure 1 below shows, CU is a dynamic context with at least three different modes
of online instruction are being utilized (in addition to traditional, face-to-face models):
blended (synchronous), fully online (synchronous) and fully online (asynchronous). These
employ a combination of LMS and videoconference software to deliver online learning to a
mostly homogeneous student population.
19
Figure 1: Summary of Online courses at Central University
Summary
At CU, there exists a cohort of instructors then, who are engaging in synchronous
videoconferencing instruction in a way that is not yet mainstream among practitioners in
Korea, and perhaps more widely, and that is not described in any depth in the literature. In
conducting this study now, we are afforded a unique opportunity to discern whether there is a
relationship between teaching presence and online instructor satisfaction.
20
Chapter 3 Literature Review
In Chapter 2, I describe the background and context within which this study is to take
place, outlining a fairly developed instance of online teaching and learning (OTL) at CU. In
this chapter, the literature relating to OTL is explored in order to lay the foundation for the
examination of teaching presence and online instructor satisfaction. Relevant research on the
Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI), the conceptual framework in which OTL is to be
evaluated in this study, is introduced. Online instructor satisfaction is considered, beginning
with early research into job satisfaction, before focusing specifically on satisfaction as it
applies to online instructors. Finally, in this chapter I consider the importance of the CoI, the
importance of online instructor satisfaction, and ultimately the importance of a potential
relationship between the two. By considering whether there is a relationship, we are presented
with the opportunity to inform future researchers, instructors, and administrators, at a time
when synchronous videoconferencing is becoming more mainstream, not only in the fields of
TESOL and applied linguistics, but in the field of education as a whole.
The CoI (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; 2010) encompasses three so-called
“presences”: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. CoI encourages the
development of deep understanding in students through the development of practical inquiry
and critical thinking skills in computer-based OTL contexts (Ibid.). The keystone of CoI is
Teaching Presence since it influences the other elements of the framework and how they play
out in practice. Teaching presence is characterized by an instructor’s actions in relation to the
instructional design and organization of a course, discourse facilitation between students and
between instructor and students, and by direct instruction. In sum, teaching presence describes
the traditional roles and responsibilities of instructors, with their importance and complexity
being potentially amplified by the differences inherent to the online medium, such as dealing
with the vagaries of computer technology, connection issues, and the feeling of distance and
isolation experienced by students.
In terms of scholarly investigation, research into teaching presence occupies a very
small amount of the literature, just 3% of articles in an applied meta-analysis of CoI research
performed in 2014 (Befus, Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, Koole & Stenbom, 2014). In a
breakdown of geographic contexts, some 74% of studies addressing CoI primarily occurred in
North American contexts; Australian contexts made up 3%, and Asian contexts are not
mentioned. “Other” and “Not stated” made up 11% of the studies analysed, but the
composition of these two categories were not explicitly stated (Ibid.). Since teaching presence
concerns the roles and responsibilities of instructors, it is surprising that a connection between
21
teacher presence and online instructor satisfaction appears not to have been explored in the
literature.
Instructor satisfaction cannot be ignored, and indeed, relative to teaching presence, has
been subjected to a greater amount of investigation drawing on the research of psychologists
who have been researching job satisfaction since the middle of the 20th Century (see for
example Vroom (1982); Maslow, Frager, Fadiman, McReynolds & Cox (1970); Herzberg,
Snyderman & Mausner (1966)). More specifically, online instructor satisfaction has received
attention from scholars such as Bolliger & Wasilik (2009), Pollicino (1996) and Rosser and
Townsend (2006). The Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure (OISM), validated by Bolliger,
Inan & Wasilik (2014), provides researchers with a compelling tool to measure online
instructor satisfaction. The measure includes instructor perceptions of interaction in their
online lessons, overlapping with the discourse facilitation and direct instruction aspects of
teaching presence in CoI. It takes into consideration how instructors feel about the design and
implementation of their courses, overlapping with the instructional design and organization
and direct instruction elements of teaching presence. It also factors in instructor satisfaction
with the affordances of online technology in providing educational experiences to students,
overlapping with not only teaching presence, but CoI in its entirety.
To begin a discussion of the literature related to teaching presence and online
instructor satisfaction, it is necessary to first attempt to define online teaching and learning
(OTL). This is no easy task, considering the amount of debate and lack of consensus on the
actual terms used to describe OTL. In addition to definitions present in the literature, some of
the issues with defining OTL are discussed below, as well as how favouring a context-driven
approach to describing online learning may be advantageous for researchers.
Defining online teaching and learning
Defining what constitutes OTL is problematic. This is due to the different terms, often
used interchangeably, that administrators, practitioners, institutions of higher learning,
students and the media use to describe what might variously be called distance learning, e-
learning, or online learning. J. L. Moore, Dickson-Deane & Galyen (2011) points to
researchers and practitioners such as Lowenthal & Wilson (2010) and Volery & Lord (2000)
who have yet to agree on a common definition and nomenclature for describing OTL.
Distance learning
Distance learning in its modern form can be traced back to the mid-19th century, first
with the work of Sir Isaac Pitman (M.G. Moore & Kearsley, 2011) in establishing a
22
correspondence school teaching shorthand, and then the University of London (now
University College London) with the establishment of its external program in 1858 (Rothblatt,
Muller, Ringer, Simon, Bryant, Roach, Harte, Smith, Symonds, 1988). In its simplest form,
the term ‘distance learning’ refers to the provision of, or access to, educational materials for
students, by teachers, who are separated by distance. Neither party is in a brick-and-mortar
classroom at the same time engaged in the practice of teaching and learning. With the advent
of personal computers in the 1980s and the spread of the Internet in the 1990s, a refinement of
this definition was proposed by M. G. Moore (1990) to include the delivery of instructional
materials using both print and electronic media (J. L. Moore et al., 2011, p.129). This
definition included the possibility of instruction not only being provided with the teacher and
learners in disparate locations, but also occurring at disparate times.
In defining distance learning, Keegan (1996) starts his description of the field by
stating “the need to clarify terminology in this field is urgent” (p. 33) yet describes distance
education as a generic term that “includes the range of teaching/learning strategies used by
correspondence colleges, open universities, [and] distance departments of conventional
colleges” (Ibid.). As a generic term, distance learning has come to encompass e-learning,
online collaborative learning, virtual learning, web-based learning and more. A succinct and
useful definition of distance learning as it applies to the current context then is “some form of
instruction occurring between two parties (a teacher and student) held at different times, and
in different places using different media” (J. L. Moore et al., 2011, p. 130).
E-learning
E-learning as a term is most likely to have been coined during the 1980s, at or around
the same time as online learning (J. L. Moore et al., 2011, p. 130). Of the three terms
discussed in this section, it seems to attract the greatest amount of disagreement when it
comes to what exactly the characteristics of e-learning are. Nichols (2003) argues that e-
learning must involve the accessing of educational materials using tools that are web-based,
web-capable or otherwise connected to the Internet. Ellis (2004) expands a definition of e-
learning to include media and materials such as audio and videotape, television CDs and CD
ROMs, that are not necessarily connected to the web. In addition, there is considerable
disagreement as to whether the technologies being utilized are the sole determiner of what
might be termed e-learning. Tavangarian, Leypold, Nölting, Röser, and Voigt (2004) draws on
Piaget (1950) and subsequent constructivist scholars to attach an experiential element to e-
learning: “learning has a procedural and active character, which must lead to construction of
knowledge by the learner on the background of the learner’s individual experience and
knowledge” (Tavangarian et al., 2004, p. 273). This suggests that a learner-centred point of
23
view is needed for the discussion of e-learning. This is of great import to the context to be
discussed here, given the connections between constructivism and CoI (Garrison, et al., 2000;
2010). Despite these contrasting opinions, J. L. Moore et al. (2011) concludes their discussion
of e-learning thus: “No matter the form it takes; whether application, website […] e-learning
can be seen to provide learning and/or educational opportunities for learners” (p. 130).
Online learning
One last term, often used interchangeably, that needs to be considered here is online
learning. Does online learning describe the context and/or medium that is being used to
deliver learning experiences to students, as advocated by Lowenthal et al., (2009)? Or is the
use of online learning a descriptor for something that occurs in its entirety “online” as
suggested by Oblinger, Oblinger, and Lippincott (2005)? With this question in mind, it is
online learning that might prove to be the most difficult to define. Perhaps the best solution
then is to turn full circle and come back to distance learning. Online learning, according to
Benson (2002), is a continuation of distance learning, albeit with improved access for learners.
It is characterized by the same access to materials and learning experiences via different
media irrespective of distance or time. Online learning is also characterized by using
connected technologies, such as the Internet, and provides opportunities for teachers and
learners to interact, share experiences, and ultimately form a community wherein an
educational experience occurs.
Given the lack of consensus on terms and definitions discussed above, a more useful
way to think about what constitutes OTL might be to consider the proportion of content
delivered online in programs and courses at institutes of higher learning. Allen, Seaman,
Poulin, and Straut (2016) uses proportionality of online content to describe OTL. Based on
the Sloan Consortium’s (J. C. Moore, 2002) definitions of online learning that have been used
since 2002, Table 1 outlines the proportionality used by Allen et al. (2016).
Table 1: Description of online learning types by proportion of online content
Proportion
delivered online
Type
Description
0%
Traditional
No online technology is used. Content is delivered for the most
part orally or in written form, and lessons take place in a
classroom.
1-29%
Web-
facilitated
Web-based technology is used to facilitate what is still essentially
a face-to-face course. Instructors use either web pages or a LMS
for posting course content and assignments, etc. A place for
students to submit work online may also be provided.
30-79%
Blended/
hybrid
A blend of online and face-to-face delivery of the course(s) where
a substantial component of the course is delivered online. In the
early years of OTL, this constituted mostly text-based
conferencing, but could now also include various multimedia
24
Proportion
delivered online
Type
Description
materials. Web pages and/or an LMS is used to post course content
and assignments, and to provide a place for students to submit
their work.
80+%
Online
Most or all the course content is delivered online via a website or
LMS. Typically, there is no face-to-face delivery in the course.
Adapted from Allen et al. (2016)
The benefit of this categorization of online courses is that it has been consistently
applied by Allen et al. (2016) for the last ten years in a series of reports commissioned by The
Sloan Consortium (now the Online Learning Consortium) on the state of online education in
U.S. institutions of higher education.
6
Yet the terminology we use to describe OTL still causes
problems for researchers and practitioners, especially when the learning environment in which
it is taking place is not described sufficiently (J. L. Moore et al., 2011, p. 34). Online learning
cannot be thought of as a single entity (Lowenthal et al., 2009); instead we need to examine
OTL through the context in which it is happening. This starts with the categorization by
proportion of learning undertaken online proposed by Allen et al. (2016), but the broader
context must also be considered.
While more and more emphasis has been put on the importance of context in
qualitative research over the last decade, especially in the human sciences (Dellinger & Leech,
2007), Lowenthal et al. (2009) argues that this hasn’t held true for examinations of OTL. They
note that as an umbrella term, online learning lacks specificity (para. 2). This may be because
the characteristics that make up OTL change depending on the context. Lowenthal et al.
(Ibid.) provides us with reasons to stay away from what they call “undifferentiated constructs”
(para. 4) of online learning: the (negative) impact on research results, the confusion it creates
among practitioners, and the (perhaps undue?) influence these undifferentiated constructs
have on course implementation. When undifferentiated, or when generic descriptions of
online learning (or distance learning or e-learning) are used, it has the effect of influencing
administration and educational managers, causing them to hold unrealistic expectations of
instructors in terms of process, design and implementation, as well as unrealistic perceptions
of success in online program delivery.
6
From 2007-2016, the Online Learning Consortium has tracked online learning in the United States with surveys
conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group and data collected in partnership with the College Board and
sponsored by Pearson. cf. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/survey-reports/
25
Towards a context-driven typology of online teaching and learning
The difficulty in reaching a consensus in defining OTL discussed above is
compounded by the variety of diverse ways in which OTL manifests (J. L. Moore et al., 2011)
Instances of OTL can range in diversity from blended courses, and synchronous
videoconference lessons discussed in this study, to vocabulary learning via students’ mobile
phones, as discussed in Stockwell (2015, 2016). Approaching the description of a specific
instance therefore necessitates examining the specific context within which it happens.
Context here encompasses setting, pacing, curriculum fit, course development, and the kind of
learning being targeted in addition to the media utilized. A context-less examination will only
serve to confound the attempts of researchers, and confuse practitioners and administrators
(Lowenthal et al., 2009)!
To ensure that an accurate description of an instance of OTL is created, the use of a
typology can be employed. Harasim (2000; 2006) classifies OTL into three types as seen in
Table 2:
Table 2: Harasim’s three types of online learning and teaching
Type
Description
Online collaborative
learning.
Perhaps the most common form of OTL in higher education
settings, this can involve either synchronous or asynchronous
instruction, or a combination of the two, with a focus on using
these to help students and teachers communicate with each other.
Online distance
education.
Harkening back to the correspondence-based study of the mid-
19th century, online distance education is the use of technologies
for self-study where essentially there is a one-to-one relationship
between instructor and student, or at least a one-to-many
relationship.
Online computer-based
training.
By far the most complex of Harasim’s types, online computer-
based training refers to the provision of content to students
through courseware or individualized learning modules, such as
through a massive open online course (MOOC). Yet this is not a
collaborative model in which collaboration or communication
occurs between instructor and student (p. 63). The advantages of
this type of learning are its flexibility, its suitability for on-the-job
training and the delivery of just-in-time training (p. 64).
Adapted from Harasim (2006)
Yet these distinctions still prove to be too broad, not providing the detail that allows
the researcher insight into specific contexts.
Another typology of online learning comes from the International Association of K-12
Online Learning, and details six characteristics of OTL: instructional pacing, course design,
delivery technology, instructor role, communication between teacher and students, and teacher
26
requirement (Ferdig, Cavanaugh, DiPietro, Black, & Dawson, 2009). These constructs
provide a considerably higher level of detail for describing an instance of OTL and underlie
the typology described below.
Rather than seeking to define OTL, Lowenthal et al. (2009) provides a typology for
describing OTL as it occurs in individual contexts. This typology allows the researcher to pay
attention to the ‘big picture’, in addition to the media being utilized, and examine the
instructors and learners in their specific situation. By using this typology, a context-driven
description of OTL can be derived, and a much more thorough examination of instructor
satisfaction can be undertaken. The typology categorizes the characteristics of OTL into three
themes: context, media, and teachers and learners. The table in Appendix 1 summarizes the
Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish typology and provides a critique of some of the components in the
notes section.
Since it provides researchers with the opportunity to examine any instance of OTL and
describe it in detail, the Lowenthal-Wilson-Parrish typology underlies the description of CU’s
online modules described in Chapter 1. Detailed descriptions of each module, using the
typology, are provided in Appendix 1.
As noted in Appendix 1, the use of 3D worlds such as Second Life has not been
realized in a way that their proponents expected. In 2012, we might have replaced this section
with one on so-called Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs. There are very successful
MOOCs, for example Coursera, but as they relate to describing an instance of online learning,
MOOCs may have more of a connection to the context (formality, class size, curriculum fit,
etc.) than multimedia. Likewise, social networks such as Tw i tte r and Facebook have added a
new dimension to OTL
7
and could alternatively replace 3D worlds.
The Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI) and teaching presence
CoI (Garrison et al. 2000; 2010) is a conceptual model and tool for the use of
computer-mediated communication (CMC) in an educational experience. OTL provides
practitioners with innovative ways of addressing student needs, but the potential provided by
OTL does not equal the eventual obsolescence of traditional educational values and practices.
Indeed, the realization of the potential of OTL has actually led to a resurgence in these
traditional educational values (Garrison, 2017). In creating deep and meaningful educational
7
Ergün and Usluel (2016) provides a useful example of how social networking can be used in online teaching
and learning. Of interest to the current study are the affordances provided by social networking in terms of social
and (especially) teaching presence presented here.
27
experiences for students, the establishment of community is fundamental, regardless of
whether it is online or in a face-to-face setting. Almost two decades into the 21st century, the
development of the knowledge economy has led to the expectation that students will
matriculate from higher education being able to think independently and critically, while also
being able to work and learn collaboratively (Ibid, p. 22). OTL seems uniquely suited to
creating and sustaining spaces where a convergence of deep private reflection and meaningful
public discourse can occur (Cecez-Kecmanovic & Webb, 2000; Garrison & Akyol, 2015;
Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
CoI builds on fundamental earlier work by constructivists like Dewey (1933) and
Piaget (1950) that sees education as a shared experience dealing with problems through
reflexive and critical thinking and resulting in knowledge formation. Within CoI, critical
thinking is seen as a holistic, multi-phased process connected to a triggering event (Garrison
et al., 2000, p. 98), followed by group deliberation, thinking and reflection, and then taking
some sort of action. Garrison (1997) notes that “computer conferencing” (as he called it in the
late 1990s) represented “a new age of distance education, due to its ability to create a
collaborative community of learners asynchronously and in a cost-effective manner” (p. 3).
Cognitive presence
The CoI model developed by Garrison et al. (2000) is made up of three so-called
presences: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. These work in concert
to create an online community of inquiry. Cognitive presence in CoI is understood in the
context of critical thinking as outlined by Dewey (1933), and represented by three stages: pre-
reflection, reflection, and post-reflection. In this process, reflection is key. In a practical sense,
cognitive presence is about members of the community of inquiry participating in online or
distance education, working together to solve problems. Understanding and knowledge arise
from participation in that process. Figure 2 below provides a visualization of CoI that shows
the relationship between the three presences.
28
Figure 2: The Community of Inquiry Framework
(Garrison et al. 2000)
Social presence
Social presence is characterized by three categories: emotional expression, open
communication, and group cohesion within the community. Examples of the kinds of
emotional expression that occur within a community of inquiry might include the use of
humour and self-disclosure. Open communication refers to reciprocal and respectful
exchanges within the community of inquiry, represented by some sort of online exchange.
Group cohesion speaks to the sense of belonging to a group. Kucuk and Sahin (2013) finds
that, compared to the face-to-face control group in their study, an experimental online group
created more group cohesion overall, but that, unlike the control group, the cohesion
experienced by the experimental online group took more time to develop. Social presence,
therefore, is created by the existence of a safe context in which emotional expression can
happen through open communication in the service of creating a cohesive group.
Teaching presence
The third presence is teaching presence, described by Garrison et al. (2000) as being
“essential in balancing cognitive and social issues consistent with intended educational
outcomes” (p. 101). It is important to note that teaching presence is not restricted to the
actions of a formally designated “teacher” or “instructor,” but, consistent with Vygotsky
(1987) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), any member of the community of
29
inquiry can take on the role of teacher. That said, the three components of teaching presence
identified by Garrison et al. (2000) relate to teachers or instructors in a more formal or even
traditional sense.
In the literature, teaching presence is looked at through the lens of a transactional
approach to teaching. Critical thinking and practical inquiry occur through interaction
between students and instructor (Shea, Hayes, & Vickers, 2010). According to Anderson,
Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001), the online instructor plays three distinct roles: designing
and organizing the course (IDO), discourse facilitation (DF) during lessons (p. 3), and
providing direct instruction (DI) during online teaching.
The model of teaching presence within CoI has been compared to models by Paulsen
(1995) and Mason (1991), both of whom also divide the instructor’s roles into three
responsibilities. These correspond to Anderson et al. (2001), with the only point of difference
being the definition and construction of the social role of the instructor. The social role
constitutes a completely separate element in CoI (social presence). Berge (1995) adds a fourth
responsibility, that of a “technical” support role, but this role is seen as diminishing over time
in CoI as students become more and more adept at using the tools deployed (Anderson et al.,
2001). The pedagogical function in the Bergean framework is perhaps a little too broad, and
could refer to anything the teacher does, while the “intellectual” functions described by
Paulsen and Mason could relate to things other than lesson delivery (Anderson et al., 2001)
such as an instructor’s personal philosophy on teaching. As such, we can see a progressive
refinement over time in the literature of the models of teaching, culminating in teaching
presence. This refinement is summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Models of teaching roles in computer conferencing
Anderson et al. (2001)
Berge (1995)
Paulsen (1995)
Mason (1991)
Instructional design
and organization
Managerial
Organizational
Organizational
Facilitating
discourse
Social
Social
Social
Direct instruction
Pedagogical
Intellectual
Intellectual
Technical
(Anderson et al., 2001, p. 4)
Instructional design and organization
This component is related to the planning and delivery elements of designing a course:
setting a curriculum, designing the methods that will be used in the lessons, establishing time
parameters for tasks, utilizing the online medium effectively, establishing netiquette, and
making macro level comments about the course. Many practitioners would consider this
30
“planning” and part of their jobs, relevant to what they do before, during and after the
delivery of lessons. The taxonomy of indicators of instructional design and organization
(IDO) used in this study are described in Table 4.
Table 4: Indicators of instructional design and organization
Indicators
Example
Setting a curriculum
“This week we will be discussing…”
Design methods
“I am going to divide you into groups, and you will
debate…”
Establish time parameters
“Please post a message by Friday…”
Utilize medium effectively
“Try to address issues that others have raised when you
post…”
Establish netiquette
“Keep your messages short…”
Make macro-level comments
about course content
“This discussion is intended to give you a broad set of
tools/skills which you will be able to use in deciding
when and how to use different research techniques.”
(Garrison, 2017)
Discourse facilitation
According to Garrison et al. (2000), a process that is “challenging and stimulating is
crucial to creating and maintaining a community of inquiry” (p. 101). As such the instructor
needs to be able to foster group consciousness for the purposes of identifying shared meaning
and establishing points of agreement and disagreement between participants in the community,
and to be able to identify consensus. The instructor does this through the second component
of teaching presence: discourse facilitation (DF). Facilitating discourse is a key component in
keeping students involved and engaged in CoI (Garrison et al., 2000; Anderson et al., 2001;
Garrison, 2017). In addressing this second part of teaching presence, Anderson et al. (2001) is
emphatic in the distinction between establishing and facilitating discourse on the one hand
and discussion on the other. The former is characteristic of sustained deliberation in aid of
critical thinking, while the latter is a student-centred monologue that seldom moves beyond
the exploratory stage of thinking. Through active DF, the instructor can draw in shyer students
to make contributions, acknowledge and moderate contributions, reinforce the dialogic rules
established thanks to social presence, and “generally facilitate an educational transaction” (p.
101). Table 5 below describes the taxonomy for identifying indicators of DF used in this study.
31
Table 5: Indicators of Discourse Facilitation
Indicators
Examples
Identify areas of
agreement/disagreement
“Joe, Mary has provided a compelling counter-example to your hypothesis.
Would you care to respond?”
Seek to reach
consensus/understanding
“I think Joe and Mary are saying essentially the same thing”
Encourage,
acknowledge, or
reinforce student
contributions
“Thank you for your insightful comments”
Set a climate for
learning
“Don’t feel self-conscious about ‘thinking out-loud’ on the forum. This is a
place to try out ideas after all.”
Draw in participants,
prompting discussion
“Any thoughts on this issue?” “Anyone care to comment?”
Assess the efficacy of
the process
“I think we’re getting a little off track here…”
(Garrison, 2017)
Direct instruction
Finally, the third component of teaching presence is direct instruction (DI), concerned
with the teacher in the classroom (albeit a virtual one) engaged in the practice of teaching. In
applied linguistics and TESOL contexts, this is exemplified by providing students with
knowledge of form, meaning, and use of target language, appropriate use of guiding and
focusing questions to introduce content, summarizing and paraphrasing student contributions
and utterances, and providing feedback and error correction. But there is more to DI than just
subject knowledge. There is a shared expectation that an instructor’s sharing of subject matter
knowledge is “enhanced by the teacher’s personal interest, excitement, and in-depth
understanding of the content” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 8). The instructor acts as a facilitator
in the finest Vygotskian (1987) tradition, and Anderson et al. vehemently rejects the idea of
“the guide on the side” when addressing teaching presence, labelling it “laissez faire,” and
notes that it is not very useful in the promotion of cognition (p. 8), nor does it promote the
construction and confirmation of meaning through sustained reflection and discourse.
Teaching and feedback mechanisms need to be couched in high levels of social presence and
have to be backed up by considerable content knowledge on the part of the instructor as well
as pedagogical (or andragogical) understanding. Instructors also need to be able to draw links
and connections between disparate sources, from textbooks to multimedia and Internet-based
resources, or information from sources beyond texts and readings, including personal
32
knowledge derived from the instructor’s experience (Garrison et al., 2000, p.102). Table 6
describes the taxonomy of DI indicators used in this study.
Table 6: Indicators of direct instruction
Indicators
Examples
Present content/questions
“Bates says ________. What do you think?”
Focus the discussion on
specific issues
“I think that’s a dead end. I would ask you to consider…”
Summarizing the
discussion
“The original question was…” “Joe said…” “Mary said…” “We
concluded that…” “We still haven’t addressed…”
Confirm understanding
through assessment and
explanatory feedback.
“You’re close, but you didn’t account for _____. This is important
because…”
Diagnose misconceptions
“Remember, Bates is speaking from an administrative perspective,
so be careful when you say…”
Inject knowledge from
diverse sources, e.g.
textbook, articles,
internet, personal
experiences (includes
pointers to resources)
“I was at a conference with Bates once, and he said _____. You can
find the proceedings from the conference at http://www....”
Responding to technical
concerns
“If you want to include a link in your message, you have to…”
(Garrison, 2017)
Notwithstanding the potential cost-effectiveness of distance education alluded to by
Garrison, one might ask whether or not CoI is any different from an experiential philosophy
implemented in face-to-face instruction. The answer to this proposition, in short, is no. The
influence of Dewey and practical inquiry sit at its foundation. Kucuk and Sahin (2013)
employs a mixed methods approach in a study of 109 learners in online blended and face-to-
face courses and found that the only differences between online and face-to-face instruction
occur in terms of social presence, and that students in online courses experience greater group
cohesion. With regard to cognitive presence, the level of exploration occurring in the online
course was significantly higher than in the face-to-face course (p. 149) while no statistical
difference was found between the two courses in terms of teaching presence.
Why is teaching presence important?
First, teaching presence is the keystone of CoI, allowing the “simultaneous
management of social and cognitive presence, facilitating learning objectives, and inclusion of
members in a work group” (Gallego-Arrufat, Gutiérrez-Santiuste, & Campaña-Jiménez, 2015,
33
p. 84). Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Fung (2010) points to teaching presence as having a
“significant perceived influence on cognitive presence and social presence” (p. 31). Joo, Lim,
and Kim (2011) also provides evidence (from the Korean context) that teaching presence has
a significant impact on social and cognitive presence. They state that, instructors and
instructional designers need to organize course content and curricula to try and facilitate
participation between learners so that they gain a sense of inclusion in their classes, leading to
the generation of meaningful learning.
Second, student perception of academic performance is influenced by teaching
presence. In discussing academic performance, Yang, Quadir, Chen, and Miao (2016) finds
that teaching presence “plays a significant role in predicting learners’ learning performance”
(p. 17). There is a considerable amount of research that provides evidence for the assertion
that teaching presence correlates positively with student satisfaction and perceived learning.
Overviews are provided by M. G. Moore (2013), Picciano (2002), and Swan (2001). A study
at the SUNY Learning Network (Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea & Pelz, 2003; Shea, Pickett, &
Pelz, 2003) shows an important link between student satisfaction and teaching presence.
Using end-of-semester survey instruments, the researchers in the SUNY study found that
there is a relationship between teaching presence and student satisfaction and perceived
learning. Moreover, student perceptions of teaching presence were not only connected to their
instructors, but also to their classmates’ teaching presence. This is shown by Garrison &
Akyol (2015), which provides that teaching presence is not confined to the domain of
“teachers.” All participants in the community of inquiry can take on a teaching presence role
because “each participant not only constructs personal meaning, but also dynamically directs
the way in which collaborative meanings are negotiated and constructed in the community”
(Yang et al., 2016, p. 13).
Third, teaching presence is important for its role in directing discourse within a
community of inquiry. Research showing the importance of teaching presence in ensuring
participation and quality of responses is plentiful (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Garrison et al.,
2010; Gašević, Adesope, Joksimović, & Kovanović, 2015; Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005;
Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang, 2003; Richardson, Besser, Koehler, Lim, & Strait, 2016;
Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006; Wu & Hiltz, 2004). Gorsky, Caspi, Antonovsky, Blau, and Mansur
(2010) examined forum posts at the Open University and found that in terms of teaching
presence, without explicit guidance from an instructor, student contributions were simply
“serial monologues” rather than meaningful interactions via posting (p. 53). Meanwhile, An,
Shin, and Lim (2009) simply concludes that “appropriate instructor facilitation is necessary”
(p. 758) in order to promote knowledge construction.
34
Fourth, teaching presence is important because of its impact on the development of
critical thinking skills in the members of a community of inquiry. Through design decisions,
DI, and feedback, instructors foster critical thinking within their students, an important factor
in cognitive presence. Consistent with the findings of Gorsky et al. (2010), Stein, Wanstreet,
Slagle, Trinko, and Lutz (2013) states that discussion led by learners will engender some
critical thinking, but only if done so in combination with the facilitation and feedback that
come from strong teaching and social presences (p. 83). Teaching presence is central to the
creation of purposeful, deep, and meaningful educational experiences in online and blended
environments (Garrison, 2017, p. 77).
Finally, one of the biggest challenges facing OTL is the feeling of isolation that
students (and teachers) feel. For example, Bowers & Kumar (2017) cites isolation as one of
the factors leading to learners withdrawing from online courses. Given the connection
between teaching presence and social presence, and its importance to group cohesion
(Garrison, 2017, p. 46), it shouldn’t be surprising to find that “instructors who support and
moderate communication were also found to support community development” (Brooke &
Oliver, 2007, in Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 77). At roughly the same time, Shea et al.
(2006) finds that teaching presence is important because it “is related to students’ sense of
connectedness and learning” (p. 85).
Teaching presence and videoconferencing
While there have been considerable advances in infrastructure in the last five to ten
years that have meant that videoconferencing has begun to enter the lexicon of researchers
examining OTL (see for example Lai & Pratt (2009); Roberts (2011); and Pratt & Puller
(2013) in the New Zealand context), research in the area of videoconferencing remains
underdeveloped (Lawson et al., 2010). However, there has been a handful of studies that have
focused on different issues related to the provision of educational content via videoconference.
Karal, Cebi, & Turgut (2011) examines student satisfaction while Barbour (2015) and Koeber
and Wright (2008) consider the success of videoconferencing at the program level. Yet
throughout these studies, any discussion of presence, and especially teaching presence, is
absent. Rehn (2017) contains examples of instructors delivering content in live, synchronous,
videoconferencing settings, but both she and Murphy (2009) describe teacher presence (as
distinct from teaching presence) in terms of closing the psychological distance gap
experienced by teachers and students.
Teaching presence places at the feet of the instructor much of the responsibility for
creating the conditions for positive student outcomes in videoconference lessons– a far more
complex process than simply compiling a list of Web sites or computer-based resources (Levy
35
& Stockwell, 2006) and then talking about them on camera. Yet little of the literature sheds
light on what happens in these contexts as it relates to teaching presence, let alone instructor
satisfaction. Indeed, Murphy (2009), Rehn, Maor, and McConney (2016), and Rehn (2017)
stand out as being some of the only research to encompass both the delivery of synchronous
online videoconferencing, and the unique skills that instructors in these settings need, but not
with reference specifically to teaching presence.
Instructor satisfaction
Instructor satisfaction is one of the key components outlined in the Quality Framework
for Online Education (J. C. Moore, 2005), which consists of five pillars representing the
quality of an institution’s online learning offerings. The Learning Effectiveness Pillar holds
that online students’ learning should be at least equivalent to that of students in face-to-face
settings (termed “traditional students” according to the framework), although these
experiences needn’t replicate a traditional classroom necessarily. The Scale Pillar relates to an
institution’s ability to balance costs so that tuition is affordable, yet sufficient to meet ongoing
research and development costs and commitments, including those of infrastructure and
resources. It is also concerned with leadership, methodologies, and faculty salary. The Access
Pillar speaks to an institution’s provision of meaningful access to courses, degrees, and
programs in the students’ choice of discipline. This begins with making students aware that
there are online options available before they enrol, and continue with academic support
(tutoring, advising), administrative support (financial aid and disability support), and
technical support (hardware/software) during a course of study. The Student Satisfaction
Pillar reflects the aspects of the educational experience, and that students are given the
opportunity to discuss their satisfaction during and at the end of a course of study with
reference to rigor and fairness, professor and peer interaction, and support services. Finally,
and most relevant to the present discussion, the Faculty Satisfaction Pillar provides that
instructors should find the online teaching experience personally rewarding and of
professional benefit (Online Learning Consortium, 2017). The Quality Framework for Online
Education is useful in providing a list of the personal factors, and contrasting those with
institutional factors, that contribute to instructor satisfaction so that instructors “find the
online teaching experience personally rewarding and professionally beneficial” (para. 1). It
goes further, explaining that there are personal factors and institutional factors that influence
instructor satisfaction. Personal factors include “opportunities to extend interactive learning
communities to new populations of students” and “to conduct and publish research related to
OTL” (para. 2). Institutional factors relate to the amount of support (faculty training and
36
ongoing technical support), rewards (institutional systems that “recognize the rigor and value
of online teaching” (para 2.)), and institutional study/research, provided to the instructor by
the institution.
In developing the Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS), Bolliger & Wasilik
(2009) and Wasilik & Bolliger (2009) describe three areas as influencing instructor
satisfaction: student-related factors, instructor-related factors, and institution-related factors.
Bolliger et al. (2014) builds on this earlier work as well as J. C. Moore’s (2005) definition of
instructor satisfaction and concludes that instructor satisfaction is the “perception that the
process of teaching in the online environment is efficient, effective and beneficial for the
individual” (Bolliger et al., 2014, p. 184). They identify four elements that are important
influences on instructor satisfaction: instructor-to-student (ISI) and student-to-student
interactions (SSI), affordances (A), institutional support (IS), and course
design/development/teaching (CDT). These four elements are expanded upon in Table 7
below.
Table 7: Definition of constructs in online instructor satisfaction
Construct
Definition
1. Instructor-to-student
interaction (ISI)
Instructor satisfaction derived from the format, type, frequency and
quality of two-way communication and interaction with online
students in order to facilitate student engagement and learning.
2. Affordances (A)
Instructor satisfaction derived from functionary and potential
benefits of the online learning environment in regard to
convenience, flexibility, and potential value of providing accessible
learning opportunities
3. Institutional support
(IS)
Instructor satisfaction derived from the amount, quality, and
timeliness of support provided by their institutions to assist them in
the effective and efficient design and delivery of online courses
4. Student-to-student
interaction (SSI)
Instructor satisfaction gained from the quality and quantity of active
communication, interaction, and collaboration among online
students that supports and facilitates student learning
5. Course
design/development/
teaching (CDT)
Instructor satisfaction derived from the teaching process that
involves online course design, development, delivery, and student
assessment
(Bolliger et al., 2014, p. 187)
Why is online instructor satisfaction important?
Online instructor satisfaction has not received nearly as much attention and research
emphasis as other topics in OTL (Dietrich, 2015), and research into online instructor
satisfaction is “extremely limited in the field of higher education” (McLawhon & Cutright,
37
2012, p. 341). Thus, from a research point of view, online instructor satisfaction is important
since it is an area of OTL that needs further investigation. Beyond scholarship, the importance
of online instructor satisfaction becomes even greater when viewed in relation to the
increasing and rapid growth of OTL. As traditional higher education institutions continue
augmenting their brick-and-mortar offerings with online and blended courses, there is an
increased number of faculty moving into online teaching (Mandernach, Dailey-Hebert, &
Donnelli-Sallee, 2007). The satisfaction of these faculty members needs to be taken into
account as the focus of research and also in terms of faculty retention. Online instructor
satisfaction is important because of the impact it has on students, as instructors have
expressed satisfaction with online learning because it gives greater access to higher education
and meaningful educational experiences to a diverse range of students (Bolliger & Wasilik,
2009; Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009; Bolliger et al., 2014).
The study of online instructor satisfaction is complex, difficult to describe and difficult
to predict (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009), which may contribute to the dearth of research on the
topic. Yet it is possible to more adequately describe its importance in terms of student-related
factors, instructor-related factors, and institutional factors (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Dietrich,
2015; Hogan & McKnight, 2007; Pollicino, 1996).
To understand the importance of online instructor satisfaction necessitates first
understanding more general literature on job satisfaction. Maslow et al. (1970) posits that
satisfaction in one’s job is achieved when the job and the environment in which it occurs meet
the needs of the individual. Vroom (1982) builds on the importance of the individual in job
satisfaction, and notes that individuals are likely to make decisions about their work that take
into account their perceived ability to complete their work to a satisfactory standard and
receive some sort of reward for their efforts. When this perception is high, and an individual
can make a connection between success and reward, and that reward is valued, the
individual’s motivation increases, as does their performance, and satisfaction is attained.
Hagedorn (2000) incorporates both of these ideas and takes into account the work of Herzberg
et al. (1966), which characterizes satisfaction in terms of triggers (changes in lifestyle),
mediators (motivators and conditions in the environment that influence other variables), and
so-called hygienes (things that demotivate the individual). It is these three factors that Bolliger
and Wasilik (2009) looks to when concluding that satisfaction for online instructors is
characterized as “the perception that teaching in the online environment is effective and
professionally beneficial” (p. 105).
Despite expressing some reservations about the lack of face-to-face communication
(Bower, 2001), instructors like the fact that online education allows for high levels of ISI and
38
SSI. Student performance correlates positively with instructor satisfaction and the level of
instructor satisfaction is high where student performance is better (Fredericksen et al., 2000;
Hartman, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2000). Instructor satisfaction is also positively influenced
when instructors believe that they can have a positive impact on student outcomes (J. C.
Moore, 2005). Thus, we see a reciprocal relationship between instructor satisfaction and
student satisfaction and outcomes.
Satisfaction can also be evaluated in terms of the relationship instructors have with
their institution. While self-gratification, intellectual challenge, and interest in using
technology all contribute to satisfaction, professional development opportunities and
opportunities for research collaboration have also been identified as factors that influence
instructor satisfaction (Al-Zahrani, 2015; Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). However, these factors
are also institution-dependent. Instructors are satisfied only when the institution provides a
climate ensuring professional autonomy and activity commensurate to specialized expertise
(Pollicino, 1996). Instructor loyalty to their employer then is predicated on perceptions that it
is the institution’s responsibility to foster a “climate that is conducive to faculty satisfaction”
(Ibid., p.3). This climate might be fostered by an acceptance among administrators that online
instruction is a normal, albeit specialized, practice. Levy & Stockwell (2006) refers to
normalization of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Here, this is expanded to
encompass all contexts where OTL is occurring. Institutions must provide access to working
hardware and software (and recognize that OTL has specific hardware and software
requirements), technical support, the opportunity for collaboration, faculty training, and
accept that activity by faculty and students is normal practice (emphasis added) (Ibid., p. 234).
Instructors are likely to be more satisfied with their institution when they perceive
administration as considering OTL a normal and valid form of teaching, instead of something
conducted in addition to, or on the side-lines of “proper teaching”, or that simply involves
“cutting and pasting” something into an LMS.
From the institution’s point of view, instructor satisfaction is crucial for instructor
retention, with job dissatisfaction contributing to an instructor’s intent to leave (Kim, 2016;
Rosser & Townsend, 2006). Institutions desire a high level of retention, especially when
instructors are capable of producing the desired high level of work. This relationship between
the instructor and the institution is a potential source of conflict and dissatisfaction, and so
understanding of satisfaction is crucial in terms of quality of work because of its effect on
student persistence and retention (Rosser & Townsend, 2006, p.334). Instructors are
responsible for delivering the university’s product (Bean, 2005), and levels of instructor
39
satisfaction are often used as a measure of program effectiveness (Lock Haven University,
2004).
Highly satisfied instructors are likely to be more motivated to perform their role as
course designers, facilitators of discourse and in the provision of instruction. Katzell,
Thompson, and Guzzo (1992) finds that this motivation correlates positively to job
performance as evaluated by superiors. It also finds that job satisfaction leads to more job
involvement, in turn, involvement influences the level of effort, and that leads to a higher self-
assessment of performance by instructors (p. 215).
Online instructor satisfaction is important because it affects instructor motivation
(Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009), a fact of crucial importance as instructors are instrumental to the
success of programs. As online instruction becomes the norm in higher education, the
investigation of satisfaction is important for avoiding instructor burnout (Bolliger & Wasilik,
2009; Hartman et al., 2000; Hogan & McKnight, 2007). Of specific import to the present
study is the fact that online instructor satisfaction overlaps with aspects of teaching presence.
Specifically, the following constructs are important aspects of both instructor satisfaction and
teaching presence: interaction, course design, development and teaching, and the affordances
offered by technology in the online environment.
Why is the relationship between Online Instructor Satisfaction and Teaching Presence
Important?
Within the literature, the identification of a relationship between online instructor
satisfaction and teaching presence is absent. As such, identifying and describing the nature of
that relationship is important from the perspective of adding to our understanding of both
constructs. Furthermore, by examining the relationship between online instructor satisfaction
and teaching presence there is an opportunity to add to a growing body of literature concerned
with videoconference-based teaching, the experiences of instructors in these kinds of learning
environments, and more general areas of interest like Computer Assisted Language Learning
(CALL), and the field of applied linguistics. In order to do so, rather than looking at
satisfaction or teaching presence independently, this study uses both constructs and the
relationship between them, as Levy and Stockwell (2006) suggest, to capture a range of
perspectives that would not otherwise be possible if only one, or the other, was considered in
isolation.
Bolliger et al. (2014) defines online instructor satisfaction as the “perception that the
process of teaching in the online environment is efficient, effective and beneficial to the
individual” (p.184). (Emphasis added). Meanwhile, teaching presence directly relates to the
40
process of teaching in the online environment in the service of creating efficient and effective
educational experiences (Garrison et al., 2000). Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between
the constructs of online instructor satisfaction and teaching presence.
Figure 3: Relationship between Online Instructor Satisfaction and Teaching Presence
8
Instructional design and organization (IDO), a constituent part of teaching presence, is
synonymous with the Course design/development and teaching (CDT) satisfaction construct.
Both encompass what Gallego-Arrufat et al. (2015) refers to as “[…] facilitating learning
objectives”. The affordances (A) of the online medium influences (and sometimes limits) the
design and organizational choices instructors make. This is especially true for instructors as
they implement strategies for direct instruction (DI) and facilitating discourse (FD) in their
lessons. In turn, discourse facilitation encompasses DI as well as both instructor-to-student
(ISI) and student-to-student (SSI) interaction. Here, the plentiful, quality interactions
described by Akyol & Garrison (2008), Garrison et al. (2010), Gašević et al. (2015), and
Richardson et al. (2016) when referring to teaching presence are exactly those described by
Bolliger & Wasilik (2009) and Bolliger et al. (2014) when referring to the satisfactions
derived from the format, type, frequency and quality of two-way communication and
interaction with online students in order to facilitate student engagement and learning (ISI),
and gained from the quality and quantity of active communication, interaction, and
8
The Online Instructor Satisfaction and Teaching Presence constructs are not represented to scale in Fig. 3,
instead they are organized for legibility.
41
collaboration among online students that supports and facilitates student learning (SSI) (p.
187).
Adjacent to the other constructs is institutional support (IS). IS has, as we will see in
the following chapters, an important impact on instructor’s perceptions of efficacy and
efficiency of the process of online teaching and learning. In the literature it is described in
terms of an instructor’s loyalty to their employer (Pollicino, 1996), and an institution’s desire
to retain qualified and experienced instructors (Kim, 2016). Institutional support is seen as a
precursor to being able to plan and deliver lessons (IDO/CDT) through the provision of
physical supports such as hardware and software (A). Instructional design and organization,
direct instruction, and discourse facilitation are unlikely to happen without adequate
institutional support.
Summary
This chapter has considered the lack of consensus that surrounds the definition of OTL
and concludes that a context-driven approach to defining instances of online instruction better
serves researchers over the application of generic definitions of variously, distance learning,
e-learning and online learning. The Community of Inquiry Framework was introduced,
specifically teaching presence, as the conceptual framework that is used to evaluate OTL in
the present study. Online instructor satisfaction, and the five satisfaction constructs, were
described as a dynamic process arising from earlier work on psychology and job satisfaction.
Finally, the nature and importance of a potential relationship between the CoI and Satisfaction
was explored.
42
Chapter 4 Methodology
Introduction
In the previous chapter, the literature related to online teaching and learning (OTL),
the Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI) (with particular reference to teaching presence),
and online instructor satisfaction was examined. In this chapter, the underlying
methodological approach to the study is presented followed by a discussion of the methods
used to collect and analyse data.
From late May until early August 2017, a mixed methods case study was undertaken
in the Graduate School of TESOL at CU with the aim of answering two research questions:
RQ1. Is there a relationship between teaching presence and online instructor
satisfaction?
And if so,
RQ2. What is the nature of that relationship?
To examine the relationship between teaching presence and instructor satisfaction, the
case study encompassed three methods: a survey in which the participants completed the
Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure (OISM) (Bolliger et al., 2014), interviews with the
researcher, and observations of participants in their online videoconference lessons. These
three data sets were triangulated to produce a holistic picture, or snapshot, of teaching
presence and instructor satisfaction among the participants in their context at CU.
After deciding to undertake a case study, it was tempting to use a model that Stake
(1995) refers to as intrinsic – where, because the researcher has a genuine interest in the case,
the only intent is to understand it better. While this in itself is a worthy, academic endeavour, a
descriptive case study is a better approach because, in addition to understanding, there is the
opportunity to develop a fuller description of the relationship between teaching presence and
instructor satisfaction with regard to the context in which it is occurring. In so doing, the
researcher is also able to more readily identify their own connection to the phenomenon being
studied.
It is no coincidence that Yin (2013) and Stake (1995) have influenced the choice of
approach here, since they both consider the development of a case study through a
constructivist paradigm that “recognizes the importance of… creation of meaning” (Baxter &
Jack, 2008, p. 545). The case study is a social process which seeks to create meaning and
understanding through examining the experience of participants and indeed the researcher,
and thus holds at its core many of the same epistemological and constructivist tenets central to
CoI.
43
Case design
In developing this case study, four design criteria were considered (Yin, 2013):
construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. In examining the
relationship between satisfaction and teaching presence, this study attends to validity and
reliability thus:
1. Construct validity – accepted definitions from the literature are identified for CoI and
teaching presence and are operationalized using a survey (the OISM), interviews, and
participant observations. The discussion of online instructor satisfaction benefits from
the use of an already externally validated measure along with accepted interviewing
methods and coding.
2. Internal validity – findings here are clearly and transparently derived from the data,
with the relationship between online instructor satisfaction and teaching presence
supported by evidence. Where appropriate, rival explanations and inferences about the
relationship are put forward or discounted as being less acceptable based on the
evidence from the data (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2013, p. 295)
Both construct validity and internal validity are important for being able to describe the nature
of the relationship between online instructor satisfaction and teaching presence detailed in
RQ2.
3. External validity – external validity relates to the researcher’s ability to clearly
identify the domain in which the results of the study can be applied and otherwise
generalized (Yin, 2013). While generalizability cannot be claimed due to the small
size of the case study and the impossibility of sampling a larger population of
participants, the results of this study may have application to a number of fields
(including education) but have specific application to the fields of applied linguistics
and the training of English language teachers in computer-mediated contexts.
4. Reliability – The results of this study are derived from appropriately operationalized
measures and criteria. The goal of reliability is to minimize error and bias in a study
(Yin, 2013). Reliability here is buttressed by the use of the OISM, which produced
results in this study consistent with those seen in the literature. Finally, double-coding
of observations was performed employing a second coder, and a reliability coefficient
calculated to further establish reliability.
Regarding bias, especially in interviews, Cohen et al. (2013) notes that “interviewers
and interviewees alike bring their own, often unconscious, experiential, and biographical
knowledge with them into an interview situation” (p. 204). Of some concern, at least initially,
44
was the fact that the researcher holds a nominal management/supervisory role within the
department leading to potential issues of bias which could negatively impact reliability. The
impact could be characterized by participants being less forthcoming if the results from the
study might be used in evaluating them (Cohen et al. points to the possibility of the
interviewer being regarded as someone who can impose sanctions on the interviewee for
example (Ibid.)). This was mitigated by clearly explaining the role of the researcher, the
boundaries of the researcher as manager, and how the privacy of the data being gathered
would be maintained. As noted below, this was incorporated into the discussion and
explanation of the study with the participants prior to them giving informed consent. Issues of
researcher roles aside, bias in questioning was also of potential concern. Awareness of bias
can contribute to its mitigation, but in order to reduce bias in the interview, a semi-structured
interview schedule was designed on the basis of the responses to the OISM. An attempt to
keep to the sequence of questions during interviews was made while seeking to allow for
some fluidity in interview technique.
Baxter and Jack (2008) notes that “rigorous qualitative case studies afford researchers
opportunities to explore or describe a phenomenon in context” (p. 544), especially where a
variety of data can be examined. The benefit of this descriptive case study is that it allows the
complex interrelationships between teaching presence and online instructor satisfaction as
phenomena to be fully revealed. Crabtree and Miller (1999) notes that one of the advantages
of a case study approach to research is the close collaboration between researcher and
participant. Here, because of the possibility of providing participants with a chance to tell
their stories (Crabtree and Miller 1999), and because of the closeness of the researcher to the
context, this study attempts to establish what relationship exists between teaching presence
and instructor satisfaction and the contextual conditions in which phenomena exist by using
appropriately operationalized methods (a survey, interviews, and observations).
As a single case design, this study strives to be clear and unambiguous in describing
the circumstances and considering the outcomes of the three operationalized measures it
employs (Robson [2002] in Cohen et al. [2013]). It is limited in terms of the number of
participants, but it is the hope of this researcher that, as Adelman, Kemmis, & Jenkins (1980).
notes, the results can be interpreted and put to use by practitioners and researchers. A larger
sample size would increase the breadth of understanding of the phenomena being examined
by creating greater diversity among the pool of participants. However, this study still provides
a useful snapshot of the phenomena in a specific context. While case studies are sometimes
limited in the generalizability of their results, some analytic generalizations are possible (Yin,
2013). These are discussed in Chapter 5. By examining a specific teaching context, this case
45
study is able to add to and expand upon existing theory and practice, helping researchers to
understand other similar cases, phenomena, and situations, and build logical connections
between similar cases (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 294).
This case study serves as a first step towards generalizing a broader theory (that of
OTL) which can later be tested in an empirical setting, using an experiment, intervention or
other appropriate instrument. In the planning, operationalization, and analysis of the data
presented, it is clear that there are some issues in attempting to generalize and extrapolate on
the typicality and representativeness of the phenomena observed, but we can extrapolate the
data with reference to CoI and instructor satisfaction, and by extension test that theory
(MacPherson, Brooker, & Ainsworth, 2000, p. 52).
Mixed methods
Mixed methods research is the collection, analysis, and interpretation of both
quantitative and qualitative data within a study (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Tashakkori,
2007). A mixed methods approach was selected here because at the beginning of the research
period, it was unknown whether there was a relationship between teaching presence and
online instructor satisfaction, or what the nature of that relationship might be. A mixed
methods approach allows for the examination of these phenomena from both a qualitative and
a quantitative perspective. This is useful because, when it comes to teaching, examining
instructor actions, and the dynamic environment of an online lesson, it seldom matters how
much systematic planning has gone into the delivery of content by an instructor (or indeed,
systematic planning of observation by a researcher). Instructors (and researchers) in an online
lesson need to be aware of and remain responsive to a plethora of student responses, technical
issues, interactions, and other possible phenomena. These phenomena cannot be fully
described using a single method, whether experimental or descriptive.
Employing a mixed methods approach here allows for the triangulation of responses
from three sources and allows for different perspectives to be taken into account. One way of
conceptualizing the sources of data for this study is on a continuum where the OISM provides
participants the opportunity to rank their perceptions of satisfaction, interviews provide them
the opportunity to expand on those responses, and observations yield accounts of phenomena
as they occur in participants’ lessons. This sort of methodological pragmatism is advocated by
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) and allows for what Reams and Twale (2008) terms the
“uncovering of information and perspective, increased corroboration of data and rendering of
less biased and more accurate conclusions” (p. 133 cited in Cohen et al., 2013). Taken
together, these methods yield results from which the researcher can better make inferences
46
concerning phenomena (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 35) that can be utilized to address the
research focus, that can serve as a foundation for later research, and perhaps most importantly,
can inform practitioners in their day-to-day teaching.
Methods
During the research period, participants completed the OISM, were interviewed, and
were observed in online videoconference lessons. The results of the analysis of data from
these three methods are presented in the next chapter. Approval for research involving human
subjects was granted for this study by the Faculty of Human Sciences Human Research Ethics
Sub-Committee of Macquarie University, effective 17th May 2017. Approval to conduct this
study and collect data was also obtained from the director of the Graduate School of TESOL
at CU with the explicit understanding that data gathered would not be used in any way to
evaluate the instructors taking part in the research.
Participants, recruitment, and consent
As indicated previously, participants in this study were members of the faculty of the
Graduate School of TESOL at CU. To recruit participants, emails were sent to all faculty
members by the researcher outlining the purpose of the study, detailing potential risks and
how confidentiality of responses would be maintained. Participants were provided with a
consent form (see Appendix 3) via email and then met with the researcher in person to discuss
the study and give their informed consent. In addition to the instructors, 27 students
participated in this study by being present during lesson observations. While not the main
focus of the study per se, the students necessarily formed the other half of the interactions
observed during lessons and discussed here. Student participants were provided with the same
information outlining the purpose of the study, potential risks, and issues of confidentiality.
The consent form was provided to them via their learning management system (LMS) in both
English and Korean for their review. Prior to observations, the researcher met with students
via videoconference (and in person for the blended group), explained the principle of
informed consent and the purpose of the study, and answered student questions. Students
returned their consent forms via the LMS.
Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure
The OISM (Bolliger et al., 2014) examines the five constructs of instructor satisfaction
(discussed above in Chapter 2, Table 7): affordances (A); instructor-to-student interaction
(ISI); course design/development/teaching (CDT); institutional support (IS); and instructor-to-
student interaction (SSI). It’s use in the present study allows for the development of a
somewhat quantitative profile of participant’s perceptions of their satisfaction - essential in
47
developing an understanding of the satisfaction constructs in response to RQ1.The OISM is a
previously validated tool for measuring instructor satisfaction (Ibid.) and was administered to
the participants at the start of the research period. Participants were asked to indicate their
level of agreement with 27 5-point Likert scale items relating to their satisfaction with online
teaching. The points on the Likert scale were 1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neither
disagree or agree, 4. Agree, and 5. Strongly agree. The OISM was recreated in Survey
Monkey, a commercial, web-based survey builder and data collection/analysis tool.
Participants were sent a link to the survey, which they then completed online. The first part of
the measure gathered demographic data about the participants and prefaced the gathering of
data relating to instructor satisfaction in the OISM proper:
A. Instructor to student interaction (ISI)
a. I am pleased with the quality of student work in online courses.
b. I am satisfied with students’ motivation in online courses.
c. My online students are somewhat passive in their interactions
d. My interactions with online students are satisfying.
e. My online students participate enthusiastically.
f. I do not get to know my online students well.
B. Affordances (A)
a. I am satisfied with the convenience of the online learning environment.
b. Online courses provide a flexible learning environment
c. Online courses allow students to access a wide range of resources.
d. Online teaching allows me to reach a more diverse student population.
e. I am satisfied that my students can access their online course from
almost anywhere.
C. Institutional Support (IS)
a. At my institution, teachers are given sufficient time to design and
develop online courses.
b. My institution provides the necessary technology tools (equipment and
software) for teaching online.
c. My needs for training to prepare for teaching online have been met.
d. I have adequate technical support by my institution.
e. My institution provides fair compensation or incentives for teaching
online.
f. I am satisfied with online teaching policies that have been implemented
by my institution.
D. Student to student interaction (SSI)
a. My online students actively collaborate.
b. My students work well together online.
c. My online students share resources with each other within the course.
d. My students appear to be part of an online community in the online
course(s) that I teach.
e. In online courses, each student has an opportunity to contribute.
E. Course design/development/teaching (CDT)
a. My online students receive quality feedback.
b. It takes a lot of time to develop an online course.
c. I am accessible to students in online courses.
d. I am satisfied with how I assess students in online courses.
e. I am satisfied with the content quality of my online courses.
48
The responses to the survey items were exported from Survey Monkey into Microsoft
Excel for quantification and analysis, and the creation of graphic representations of participant
responses was performed. To check the validity of the instrument in the current context, the
OISM was administered as an informal pilot to a former member of the faculty to check for
intelligibility and relevance. A more formal/substantial pilot was not feasible due to the small
number of potential participants and the lack of pilot participants with the relevant profile.
Interviews
To obtain more in-depth qualitative data about instructor satisfaction, a 40-minute
interview was designed. These face-to-face interviews were recorded using a digital audio
recorder and the resulting audio files were stored in secure, password protected cloud storage.
The use of a face-to-face interview here was a chance for the researcher to really be
provided with access to “what is inside [a participant’s] head” (Tuckman, 1972, p. 244) and
give participants the chance to expand on their attitudes and beliefs surrounding the context
and their actions as online instructors in CU’s TESOL programs. Interviews have a higher
response rate than questionnaires because “respondents become more involved [in the
process] … enabling more to be said about the research… and are better for handling more
difficult and open-ended questions” (Oppenheim, 2000, pp. 81-82). The interviews were
semi-formal with a predetermined set of topics and possible questions, but the interviewer
was free to modify the sequence of questions as needed, responding to key issues as they
arose (Cohen et al., 2013). A series of brief, introductory questions was asked to establish
rapport with the interviewee and gather data on their experience as a teacher generally and as
an online instructor. Then, questions geared towards expanding on the themes brought to light
by the OISM were asked. These questions reflected topics highlighted in the literature
(Conrad, 2002; Meyer, 2006): experience with course design/development/teaching, thoughts
on the affordances provided by online learning (for both instructors and learners), thoughts on
the styles of interactions occurring in online classes, and perception of the level of
institutional support received as an online instructor. The rationale for including the interview
was to provide participants with a space in which to share their experience and reflect upon
their online teaching over the last three to four years in the programs at CU.
Audio files of interviews were then transcribed, and transcriptions entered into NVivo
(QSR International, 2017), a computer assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) (Cohen
et al., 2013, p. 542) program for coding and analysis. Analysis involved examining the
frequency with which satisfaction constructs were mentioned by participants, as well as
identifying themes emerging from each interview and cross-referencing them with the
49
responses of the other participants in order to identify commonalities (also done using NVivo).
Question reliability was checked by conducting a sample interview with a former faculty
member in an informal pilot. Questions were found to be understandable and provided the
kinds of data that align with those produced in this study. The validity of the interview
questions was also confirmed because they were shown to align positively with the results of
the OISM. Interviews provided data that were pertinent to both RQ1 and RQ2, allowing
participants to explain their perceptions of their own satisfaction and elucidate on their
experiences in online teaching and learning.
Observations
For gathering data about teaching presence in online videoconference lessons, four of
the participants’ lessons were observed. The researcher and four of the participants chose
lessons to be observed based on schedule and participant preference. The researcher joined
the lessons remotely. In some cases, this meant that both instructor and researcher were in two
offices adjacent to each other, whereas in other cases, the participant and researcher were in
different parts of the city (Participant Ray, for example, taught from home while the
researcher was in their own home – such are the affordances of OTL!). During observations,
the researcher acted as what Gold (1958) refers to as the complete observer (in Cohen et al.,
2013). In an online videoconference observation, it is very easy for the observer to be unseen
and have their presence go unnoticed by the group being observed. During the observation,
the researcher joined a videoconference lesson remotely, just like the participants, and
remained with their audio and video switched off for the duration of the lesson. Unlike an
observation in a physical space, the only evidence of the researcher observing
videoconference lessons was their onscreen avatar. This was done with awareness of and
intention of reducing (but not eliminating completely) the phenomenon of so-called reactivity,
whereby participants change their behaviours because they know they are being observed.
Four hours of online lessons for each participant were recorded using Open Broadcast
System desktop software. The resulting video files were stored in secure, password protected
cloud storage. The video from these lessons was then reviewed in NVivo and the frequency
and type of each of the teaching presence indicators (Garrison, 2017) were noted. Chapter 2
details each of the teaching presence indicators used. The fifth participant was “observed” in
terms of their asynchronous, text-based interactions with students via the LMS, Google
Classroom. RQ2 was addressed by making connections between data gathered in interviews
and the OISM with the frequency of indicators of teaching presence observed in participant’s
videoconference-based lessons.
50
Summary
The choice of a mixed-methods, descriptive case study here has seen the
operationalization of a survey, interviews, and observations in an effort to identify and
describe the relationship between teaching presence and online instructor satisfaction for a
group of instructors in a specific context. During the collection of data, it was important to
take into account the potential for bias to arise due to the closeness of the researcher to the
context and the participants. Bias was mitigated through gaining informed consent from
participants and using a semi-structured approach to interviews. The reactivity of participants
in observations was limited thanks to the affordances of videoconferencing. Data from the
three different sets allowed for the triangulation of participant responses. The research design
for the case study is summarized in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Research design
After recruiting participants, the OISM was administered. Interviews and observations
of videoconference lessons occurred concurrently and were conducted depending on
individual schedules of the participants. During the interview process, transcriptions from
audio were created and reviewed as they were completed. Prior to online observations student
recruitment also took place. Finally, after the data was gathered from these three sources it
was analyzed, including for interrater reliability.
51
Chapter 5 Results
Introduction
In the preceding chapter, I outlined the operationalization of methods for collecting
data. In this chapter, the results of the Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure (OISM) are
presented along with results obtained from the interviews and observations.
The mixed methods approach used in this study seeks to discover if there is a
relationship between teaching presence and online instructor satisfaction and describe that
relationship. The data presented in this chapter provides a more holistic representation of the
participants and the context in which they operate. In the next chapter, these results will be
interpreted and their implications for the identification and description of the relationship
between online instructor satisfaction and teaching presence will be considered.
Survey data was gathered from the study participants using the OISM (Bolliger et al.,
2014) which was distributed online. The survey consisted of one section seeking demographic
information about the participants and five sections relating to their teaching satisfaction. The
responses reported in this section fall on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Next, the five participants in the study were interviewed in a one-on-one, semi-
structured interview. Interview questions expanded on the themes that came out of an initial
examination of the results of the OISM (see Appendix 4). Finally, observation of online
videoconference lessons conducted by the participants provide a third perspective on
instructor satisfaction and its relationship with teaching presence. Additionally, one
instructor’s text-only instruction was analysed to provide a comparison with the online
videoconference lessons. While these observations yielded rich qualitative data, the potential
for examining trends was also exploited to the extent of identifying general positive and
negative responses in interviews and looking for evidence of teaching presence indicators in
observations.
Participant profiles
The five participants in this study are full-time faculty members in CU’s Graduate
School of TESOL certificate programs and have been teaching online for between one and
three years in web-enhanced, blended, or fully online courses, in either synchronous or
asynchronous modes. The age of the participants ranges from 33 to 54 years. Two instructors
52
(“Michelle” and “Esther”) are female, and three (“Grant,” “Martin,” and “Ray”)
9
are male. All
have postgraduate degrees in education or applied linguistics and have taught at levels ranging
from kindergarten to university/postgraduate. Additionally, one participant holds an industry
certification in network systems engineering. Three of the participants are originally from the
Midwest region of the United States, one is from the west coast of the United States, and one
is from the north of England. The participants have resided and worked in South Korea for
between 4 and 15 years. Two of the participants have previously held positions as English
Language Fellows with the US State Department in various parts of the world, two are trained
K-12 teachers, and one is currently pursuing a Doctor of Education in instructional design
through a United States-based university.
Participants have a mix of experience when it comes to designing online courses for
use in CU’s programs, but all have taught each of the distinct types of modules offered at CU
during their time in the department. When the department began delivering online instruction
in 2014, instructors were provided with approximately four hours of in-person training in how
to use Blackboard – a commercial Content Management System (CMS) licenced by the
department. An additional two hours of in-person training was provided to participants when
the department changed to G Suite for Education for its CMS, with ongoing training
occurring at least once a semester and as needed, usually in response to Google updating
aspects of its platform. This study examined the participants’ teaching in the following types
of modules and subject areas:
• Esther – fully online, synchronous (videoconference) –language teaching methods
• Michelle – blended, synchronous (videoconference) – curriculum design
• Martin – fully online, synchronous (videoconference) – materials development
• Ray – fully online, synchronous (videoconference) – phonology
• Grant – asynchronous (text-based/LMS) – second language acquisition theory
Detailed results - the Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure
In total, the highest score in any of the instructor satisfaction constructs outlined below
is that of affordances, meaning that the participants in the survey derive a high level of
satisfaction from the flexibility provided by the online environment. The lowest score is for
the institutional support construct. Institutional support also produced the highest variation in
responses, despite the participants all belonging to the same department in the same university.
9
Participant pseudonyms are used here.
53
This may also be reflected in the unexpectedly different scores among respondents for the
question relating to the provision of the necessary technology tools (equipment and software)
for teaching online. In this section, overall results from each part of the OISM are reported
along with a summary of individual participant responses.
Figure 5: Participant perceptions of instructor-to-student interactions (ISI) in online
courses
Figure 5 above details the participants’ responses to statements regarding the quality
and quantity of their interaction with their students. In response to the statement “I do not get
to know my online students well”, three of the five agreed (1 “strongly agree,” 2 “agree”) and
two neither disagreed or agreed. Four considered their students’ participation to be
enthusiastic, while one neither disagreed or agreed. In terms of their own interactions with
students being satisfying, one instructor disagreed, one neither disagreed or agreed, and three
agreed. With reference to student passiveness in interactions in online courses, three
instructors agreed that their students are passive, one neither disagreed or agreed, and one
disagreed. Two instructors agreed that they were satisfied with their students’ motivation in
online courses (1 “agree,” 1 “strongly agree”), and three neither disagreed or agreed. Finally,
three instructors agreed that they were satisfied with the quality of student work in their online
courses, one neither disagreed or agreed, and one disagreed with this statement.
There is something of a contradiction in the responses to this section overall. All the
instructors agree that their students participate enthusiastically in online courses, and yet, four
out of five believe that students are somewhat passive in their interactions. (The exception to
0 1 2 3 4 5
I am pleased with the quality of student work in online
courses.
I am satisfied with students’ motivation in online
courses.
My online students are somewhat passive in their
interactions
My interactions with online students are satisfying.
My online students participate enthusiastically.
I do not get to know my online students well.
Instructor-to-student interaction (ISI)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree or agree Agree Strongly Agree
54
this being Michelle who disagreed that her students are passive in their online interactions and
strongly agreed that she was satisfied with her students’ motivation.) When thinking about ISI,
Martin provided responses that showed less satisfaction with ISI than did the other instructors.
He disagreed with the statement “I am pleased with the quality of student work in online
courses”, while also disagreeing that his interactions with online students were satisfying.
Martin could neither disagree or agree that he was satisfied with his students’ motivation in
online courses and believes that his online students are somewhat passive in their interactions
(“agree”). He strongly agreed that he does not get to know his online students well.
Figure 6: Participant perceptions of the affordances (benefits) that teaching online
provides
As can be seen in Figure 6 above, overall the instructors are satisfied with the
affordances offered by OTL. When considering the affordances (benefits) that teaching online
provides, all of the instructors agreed (3 “agree”, 2 “strongly agree”) that they were satisfied
that their students can access their online course from almost anywhere. Four agreed (1 “agree,
3 “strongly agree”) that online teaching allows them to reach more diverse student
populations, while one instructor neither disagreed or agreed. All instructors agreed (3 “agree”,
2 “strongly agree”) that online courses allow students to access a wide range of resources. All
agreed (3 “agree, 2 “strongly agree”) that online courses provide a flexible learning
0 1 2 3 4 5
I am satisfied with the convenience of the online
learning environment.
Online courses provide a flexible learning environment
Online courses allow students to access a wide range
of resources.
Online teaching allows me to reach a more diverse
student population.
I am satisfied that my students can access their online
course from almost anywhere.
Affordances teaching online provides (A)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree or agree Agree Strongly agree
55
environment, and finally all agreed (3 “agree”, 2 “strongly agree”) that they were satisfied
with the convenience of the online learning environment.
On a personal level, both Esther and Ray strongly agreed to all the statements in this
section and their enthusiasm for OTL is also evident in their responses during interview
(discussed below). Only Martin provided a response that didn’t agree to some extent with
these questions, neither disagreeing or agreeing that OTL allows him to reach a more diverse
student population. This may have been because he was thinking specifically about CU’s
student population, which, as discussed above, is homogeneous, while the other instructors
may have been thinking about the affordances more abstractly.
Figure 7: Participant perceptions of institutional support (IS) received while teaching
online
With regard to institutional support (IS), Figure 7 above shows that the participants
provided the highest number of “disagree/strongly disagree” responses in this section,
indicating a higher level of dissatisfaction among instructors compared to other parts of the
measure. One instructor disagreed, two neither disagreed or agreed, and two agreed in
response to the statement “I am satisfied with the online teaching policies that have been
implemented by my institution.” Three instructors disagreed (2 “strongly disagree”, 1
“disagree”) that they are provided with fair compensation or incentives for teaching online,
while two neither disagreed or agreed. When asked to consider the technical support provided
by the institution, three agreed (1 “agree”, 2 “strongly agree”) that it was adequate, and two
0 1 2 3 4 5
At my institution, teachers are given sufficient time to
design and develop online courses.
My institution provides the necessary technology tools
(equipment and software) for teaching online.
My needs for training to prepare for teaching online
have been met.
I have adequate technical support by my institution.
My institution provides fair compensation or incentives
for teaching online.
I am satisfied with online teaching policies that have
been implemented by my institution.
Institutional support received while teaching online (IS)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree or agree Agree Strongly agree
56
neither disagreed or agreed. Two instructors strongly agreed that their training needs for
teaching online were met, two neither disagreed or agreed and one disagreed. Concerning
technology tools, two instructors agreed that they were provided with the necessary
equipment and software, two neither disagreed or agreed, and one disagreed. Finally, with
regard to being given sufficient time to design and develop online courses, one instructor
agreed that they were given sufficient time, two neither disagreed or agreed, and one
disagreed.
Ray and Grant both strongly disagreed that their institution provides fair compensation
or incentives for teaching online, and Michelle disagreed, while Martin and Esther neither
disagreed or agreed. Interestingly Ray and Grant also disagreed that at their institution they
are given sufficient time to design and develop courses, while Martin and Michelle neither
disagreed or agreed and only Esther agreed, leading one to posit that there may be an
association between perceptions of sufficient planning time and compensation. Overall, the
participants derived the least amount of satisfaction from this construct.
Figure 8: Participant perceptions of student-to-student interaction (SSI) in online
courses
In contrast to the IS levels, the participants gave a mixed response toward the quality
and quantity of student-to-student interaction (SSI) they witnessed online (see Figure 8 above).
All five of the instructors agreed (1 “agree”, 4 “strongly agree”) with the statement that “In
online courses, each student has an opportunity to contribute.” Three instructors disagree that
0 1 2 3 4 5
My online students actively collaborate.
My students work well together online.
My online students share resources with each other
within the course.
My students appear to be part of an online community
in the online course(s) that I teach.
In online courses, each student has an opportunity to
contribute.
Student-to-student interaction (SSI)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree or agree Agree Strongly agree
57
students appear to be part of an online community in the online courses they teach, and two
agree. Two agree (1 “agree”, 1 “strongly agree”) that students share resources with each other
within the course, while three disagree. All instructors agreed that their students work well
together online. Four instructors agreed that online students collaborate and one neither
disagreed or agreed.
Martin disagreed that his students share resources with each other within the course,
yet agreed that students do, in fact, actively collaborate. Grant agreed that students appear to
be part of an online community in the online courses he teaches but disagreed that students
share resources with each other within the course. It is possible that this potential
contradiction arises because instructors made a distinction between the potential for students
to interact and collaborate with each other, versus the actual interaction and collaboration they
observed or were aware of in their classes. Overall, the instructors seem to share a moderate
level of satisfaction with the quantity and quality of SSI in their courses but appear to derive
that satisfaction from opposing perceptions of student collaboration.
Figure 9: Participant perceptions of course design/delivery and teaching (CDT) in online
courses
Figure 9 shows that the instructors derive a high level of satisfaction from the design,
development and teaching of online courses (CDT). Four out of the five instructors (3 “agree”,
1 “strongly agree”) reported that they were satisfied with the quality of the content in their
online courses and one neither disagreed or agreed. Likewise, four instructors agreed (2
0 1 2 3 4 5
My online students receive quality feedback.
It takes a lot of time to develop an online course.
I am accessible to students in online courses.
I am satisfied with how I assess students in online
courses.
I am satisfied with the content quality of my online
courses.
Course design, development & teaching (CDT)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree or agree Agree Strongly agree
58
“agree”, 2 “strongly agree”) that they were satisfied with how they assess students in online
courses, and one neither disagreed or agreed. In response to whether they were accessible to
their students, all five instructors agreed (3 “agree”, 2 “strongly agree”). All instructors also
agreed (1 “agree”, 4 “strongly agree”) that it takes a lot of time to develop an online course,
while four agreed (3 “agree”, 1 “strongly agree”) that their students receive quality feedback.
One instructor neither disagreed or agreed.
Of note is the finding that all of the instructors either agreed (Michelle) or strongly
agreed that it takes a lot of time to develop online courses. For Ray, satisfaction with how he
assesses students and satisfaction with content quality were neutral (neither disagree or agree).
In interviews, Ray would go on to speak at length about course design and his interest in the
intricacies of design choices, so his responses here relating to assessment and content quality
might reflect a continued effort on his part to always be revising and reviewing course content
in pursuit of improving it.
Detailed results - interviews
Participant responses to questions relating to the satisfaction constructs were
categorized as either positive or negative in terms of word choice and general tone. Positive
comments were characterized by participants using terms like “happy,” “enjoy,” “thrilled,”
and “confident.” By contrast, comments and responses that were negative in word choice and
tone were characterized by participants using terms like “dissatisfying,” “hindrance,” and
“sad.” A tally of the total number of positive and negative comments made by each instructor
is presented in Figure 10 below.
It is tempting to draw some conclusions based only on these positive and negative
responses. On the face of it negative comments seem to outweigh positive ones from all but
one of the participants. However, online instructor satisfaction is both dynamic and
complicated (Bolliger et al., 2014). The number of positive and/or negative responses makes
up a relatively small number of overall responses from participants. As trained practitioners,
the participants are used to attempting objective evaluation and discussion of their own
classroom performance. These objective discussions make up a much larger proportion of the
responses made by participants in the interviews. This may indicate, for example, that
Participant 5 is not overwhelmingly more positive than the other respondents but was perhaps
more inclined to articulate positive thoughts during the interview.
59
Figure 10: Comments and responses from participants that can be categorized as
positive or negative based on word choice and tone
10
The satisfaction derived from course design/development and teaching (CDT) was, by
a wide margin (as shown in Fig. 11 below), the most talked about satisfaction construct in
interviews. This is perhaps not surprising given that CDT forms the core of participants’
responsibilities as online instructors. Participants articulated that they saw course design as
being synonymous with facilitating discourse through planning classroom interactions (both
instructor-to-student and student-to-student). As a result, there is an overlap in interview
responses describing interactions and CDT. Participants described how, in CU’s TESOL
programs, a premium is placed on the development of students’ language skills in context. A
key component to this language development is the use of so-called classroom interactions
11
.
Ray, in particular, noted how CU TESOL has tried to replicate these techniques in online
videoconference lessons. The efficacy of these techniques is not examined here, although
some of the issues that this replication may cause might be represented in the emergent
themes discussed later in this section.
10
Instructor pseudonyms are not used here to prevent identification of individuals in relation to their use of
positive/negative comments.
11
For instructors in CU’s TESOL programs, “classroom interactions” has a specific pedagogical meaning related
to classroom practice. It refers to helping to make input comprehensible for students and checking
comprehension, having students reflect and narrate on the material being presented in the lesson, and modeling
not only instruction but also appropriate classroom language to use when teaching English in English (and
getting students to repeat the models used). These are all done with the goal of improving students’ English
through scaffolding the quality and amount of student output produced in the classroom not only in interactions
with the instructor, but also with each other.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5
Positive and Negative Comments/Responses
Positive comment/response Negative comment/response
60
Figure 11: Number of participant interview responses that refer to Bolliger et al.’s (2014)
Online Instructor Satisfaction constructs.
Whereas the OISM provided data that measured participant responses to questions
about their satisfaction, interviews were used to expand upon these satisfaction constructs and
afforded participants the opportunity to personalize and expand on their perceptions. As such,
it is important to note that participants’ responses may have been influenced by the semi-
structured format of initial and follow-up questions in the interview. Figure 11, outlines the
frequency with which participants mention the constructs associated with satisfaction
(Bolliger et al., 2014).
CDT was the most frequent construct referred to by participants during the interviews.
As mentioned above, this construct encompasses what would be considered the core
responsibility of a teacher: the development and delivery of lessons. Beyond that, though, it is
also clear that course design/development and teaching is something that the participants feel
strongly about, and a topic which elicited both positive and negative responses. For example,
in reflecting upon finding, mid-lesson, an error in materials he had created, Ray states “I kick
myself every time there is a slide with an error on it, or that kind of thing.” Participants also
talked about the amount of time that they spend preparing for online classes. Comments from
Michelle and Esther are indicative of this theme. When talking about preparing materials,
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1 : Esther
2 : Grant
3 : Martin
4 : Michelle
5 : Ray
Instructor Satisfaction Constructs -Interviews
Affordances Course development and teaching
Institutional support Instructor-to-student interaction
Student-student interaction
61
Michelle draws attention to “all the prep beforehand, especially because it’s only for one class.
For instance, when I make PowerPoint slides for the traditional classroom, they can be used
for all four or five classes. Those same slides cannot always be used for the online class.”
Esther talks about extra hours of preparation: “Despite the extra hours I would spend
‘preparing’ for the class, reviewing notes, checking my content knowledge… I [felt like] I
didn’t have the skills to handle anything that landed outside of the script.”
Instructor-to-student interaction (ISI) and student-to-student interaction (SSI) taken
together form the next most mentioned construct. Again, this reflects the importance placed
on such interactions in the department as a whole. Martin has a fairly positive view of using
classroom interactions from offline settings in online videoconference lessons, and reports
that he thinks they are used “to a pretty good extent.” When talking about student interaction
and engagement, Ray is positive, too: “I think as a [sic] long as a teacher sets up a safe,
genuine, friendly, interactive rapport, and if you’ve got four or five students who are
obviously thoroughly involved and thrilled, [everyone] is having a great time.” On the other
hand, Michelle, when talking about classroom interactions, is more circumspect about her
performance:
“Some of our classroom interactions I feel I could model a little bit better in
the online setting and in the traditional setting as well. For instance, calling on you,
then calling on another person to repeat what you said to make sure that students are
listening to each other, trying to get them to ask questions to each other. So, I would
like to replicate those a little bit more.”
The affordances offered by online instruction and institutional support were referred to
during interviews to a similar extent. Affordances were discussed positively, in line with the
results gathered in the OISM. However, instructors were able to critically evaluate the
affordances in the interviews as well. The ability to be both positive and critical of the
affordances of online teaching and learning is exemplified by Grant, who discusses
asynchronous tasks and notes, “It works. Usually those students that we’ve had have done
better on certain tasks, and the asynchronous gives them more time than in-class gives them.”
He also elaborates on the idea that teaching online is faster, “Online doesn’t cover things
twice as fast, usually half as fast!” In the survey, all of the instructors agreed that they derived
satisfaction from the fact that students can access their online classes from anywhere. But
again, the instructors articulated some of the difficulties that this can cause. Martin describes
some of the frustrations that can arise from this ease of access: “These omnidirectional mics
pick up every clink and clank of a coffee shop, the milk steamer, the noise of that, so what
seems like a convenience actually becomes a hindrance.” Finally, Michelle is cognizant of
62
some of the tasks in her course that are not necessarily available or practical to do in online
courses, despite the many affordances online teaching and learning offers teachers and
students. With reference to a practicum task, she recalls, “With the online version, we were
able to do everything except the actual teaching part, which made me sad because we weren’t
able to give [the students] another opportunity to teach in class.”
Institutional support (IS) received more negative commentary from participants, again
consistent with the responses to the OISM. Such thoughts about IS hold implications for all of
the other satisfaction constructs discussed here. For instance, with relation to the preparation
required for online courses, and the use of the instructor’s own hardware and internet
connection to create materials outside of work hours, one instructor notes, “A lot of the things
I do in-between weeks in [sic] on a tablet or a phone that are mine, and the bill is mine, and no
one is giving me relief on that.” Remuneration
12
for work on online courses also features in
other interview responses. When asked if they felt they received adequate compensation for
the work they did in developing online courses one participant responds, “For the course I
was given 500,000 Won ($1 USD = 1,144 KRW) for the design of both the face-to-face and
the blended courses, for which I spent around 60-70 hours on which is roughly… 7,500
[KRW] per hour. I am aware that online instructional designers make around $45-$50 per
hour.” This participant later emailed the researcher with a link to a popular website tha