Introduction

Imagine a room with towering industrial shelves lined from floor to ceiling with books in every shape and size covering topics from Medieval Archery to the Origin of Species.  What am I describing? –A library of course!  This used to be the go-to space for finding information, but in recent years, the internet has broadened information access from a finite building containing only the amount of paper, for which money and space would allow, to an infinite and illusive information cloud hovering outside of concrete barriers (Weston, 2009).  Along with this shift in how knowledge is accessed and shared comes a new approach to business and education.  Multinational conferencing can take place between business executives in their pyjamas, and young scholars can earn university degrees without ever stepping foot inside a brick and mortar classroom.  Clearly for teachers, the educational landscape is changing, offering new and innovative ways to not only pass on information, but to encourage students to build their own community of inquiry and construct knowledge together (Kreijns, Van Acker, Vermeulen & Van Buuren, 2014). 

On this note, building community has always been an important part of effective learning, according to proponents of Constructivism and Situated learning (Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996).  Considering this view, and the stigma of the internet being a detached host of information, how can teachers engender a sense of community in an online environment?  Is it even possible?  A review of the current research investigating online learning environments suggests that it is not only possible to be personal asynchronously, but that a sense of camaraderie or even hyper-personal activity can be developed and encouraged (Swan, 2001).   This online community building does not come naturally, however; it needs to be fostered through effective course design and teacher presence (Collis & Moonen, 2001). 

Further structure to this framework is outlined in a teaching model called the Community of Inquiry. The online Community of Inquiry model developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, suggests that the three aspects of an effective learning environment are cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (1999).  This theory has become a springboard for further research into the effectiveness of online learning environments (Anderson, Rourke, & Garrison, 2001).  Therefore, the research presented in this paper will not only seek to define cognitive, social and teaching presence, but also investigate how teachers can improve online learning environments using the framework from the Community of Inquiry model.  Although e-learning is multifaceted and can be assessed from many angles, this paper will be specifically focused on developing asynchronous online environments.

It is to be noted that much of the research regarding the design of online asynchronous learning environments is founded deeply in educational theory and points to similar conclusions in online classrooms as can be found in traditional learning environments (Pallof & Pratt, 2004). For example, the most significant findings regarding teaching presence focus on the type and quality of teacher messages submitted to the online learning environment (Zingaro & Oztok, 2012).  Timely feedback is a predictor of student satisfaction in a face-to-face classroom, so it should not be surprising that the immediacy of teacher feedback is commensurate to its effectiveness in the online learning environment (Brown & Volz, 2005).  The following articles support the assertion that relying on solid theory and meeting educational outcomes are the primary concerns when applying any new strategies to technology-based learning environments (Loveless, 2011). 

Annotation 1

den Exter, K., Rowe, S., Boyd, W., & Lloyd, D. (2012). ‘Using Web 2.0 Technologies for Collaborative Learning in Distance Education: Case Studies from an Australian University,’  Future Internet, vol. 4, pp. 216-237.

Summary: This article presents two case studies examining the effectiveness of Web 2.0 tools for encouraging collaborative learning in distance university courses offered at Southern Cross University.  The paper also provides a framework of current research that both determines a working definition of the technologies that fall under the Web 2.0 umbrella and the pedagogical reasoning behind using these technologies for collaborative distance learning (p. 217).   Quantitative data is collected through information provided by the Blackboard Learning System, and Quantitative data was collected from individual reflection blogs provided by students (p. 222).

Intended Audience: This study addresses strengths and weaknesses of using Web 2.0 tools in collaborative distance learning environments at the tertiary level.  This article may be of interest to anyone designing or facilitating a distance learning university course, although the findings could be applied to other distance learning contexts that require collaboration.

Purpose: The authors of this study seek to identify possible issues in using Web 2.0 tools for collaborating in distance learning contexts.  Their findings suggested that these tools have great scope for encouraging the creation of collective intelligence (p. 217), even without any face-to-face contact.  They acknowledge that while technology is not an end in itself, these Web 2.0 tools have the ability to encourage interaction.  When used most efficiently, interaction is the key ingredient that makes online learning successful, and a course design that reflects this principle is highly likely to thrive (p. 233).

Comparison to other work:  The suggestion that students may be uncomfortable with changing or deleting the work of peers using an online tool, such as the wiki (p. 219),  is not unique to this study (Ma & Wang, 2012).  The pedagogical background presented in this study strongly aligns with Constructivism and Situated Learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). Identifying teacher presence and student presence as key elements to success of asynchronous online learning aligns with the work of Swan (2001).

Supporting the topic: This paper supports the topic by addressing teaching and learning methods for asynchronous online learning.   The study also analyses the use of one synchronous learning tool, Elluminate Live (p. 226), but these findings are presented in such a way that the asynchronous tools can be analysed separately. 

Annotation 2

Swan, K., (2001), ‘Virtual interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses’ Distance Education, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 306-331.

Summary: As online learning continues to take an increasingly prominent role in secondary and tertiary education, investigating how to create an effective e-learning environment becomes commensurately important (Weston, 2009). This article focuses on factors that contribute to the success of asynchronous online courses. The author argues that three main factors determine the success of an online learning environment: course design, student-teacher interaction and online discussion (p. 306).  By scaffolding an online course around these three aspects, one should be able to maximise student satisfaction and perception of learning.

Intended Audience: This article specifically investigates online learning within the SUNY (State University of New York) Learning Network.  This network offers asynchronous online courses at the tertiary level.  This work could be beneficial to both researchers and practitioners of tertiary online learning environments.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine which factors contributed to student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses and to draw conclusions between these findings and other current research.  The researchers collected quantitative data in the form of liker scale “forced answer” surveys (p. 312), and qualitative data in the form of student interview questions (p. 314).  The findings in this study suggest that asynchronous online environments afford instructors the opportunity to create environments that are even more successful and personal than face-to-face classrooms (p. 322).

Comparison to other work:  The framework outlined in this work (course design, student-teacher interaction and online discussion) closely aligns with the Community of Inquiry model developed by Garrison et al (2009).

Supporting the topic:  This research directly supports the topic by highlighting successful strategies for encouraging a positive and functional online learning environment.

Annotation 3

Rourke, L, Anderson, T, Garrison, D.R., (1999),  ‘Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing,’ Journal of Distance Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 50-71.

Summary: The authors of this study explore in more depth the aspect of social presence from the Community of Inquiry Model, developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (1999).  Firstly, an in-depth review of academic research regarding social presence in terms of affective, cohesive, and interactive responses in educational contexts is conducted (p. 7-10). A format is then presented for assessing online computer conferencing environments, including examples from the two course transcripts that are analysed for the purposes of this paper.  They also highlight potential areas of concern with their review process, specifically interrater reliability and unit of analysis (p. 11).

Intended Audience: This paper would be useful to anyone interested in conducting an analysis of social presence in a computer conferencing environment.  Both teachers and researchers would find this paper helpful. 

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to present a template which could be used by researchers or practitioners to assess social presence in online learning environments.  From the three categories of social presence previously mentioned, 12 indicators have been developed for the analysis of interactions in computer conferencing contexts (p. 61).  The information and indicators presented in this study are meant to be used as guidelines for further research.

Comparison to other work:  The findings concerning the social presence aspect of online communities, specifically humour and expression of emotions, align closely with the findings of Meyer & Jones (2012).  Earlier work by Garrison et al (2009) acts as a catalyst for this study and others (Anderson et al, 2001).

Supporting the topic: This article directly supports the topic by investigating and presenting a format for assessing one specific aspect of asynchronous online learning: social presence.

Annotation 4

Garrison, D. R. (2007). ‘Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues.’ Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 11, no.1, pp. 61-72.

Summary: The author focuses on developing community in online learning environments and how perceived learning is affected (p. 61).  This article examines the findings of relevant research and attempts to highlight important considerations regarding social, cognitive and teaching presence in online learning environments (Garrison et al, 1999).  The Community of Inquiry framework has previously been important in traditional learning environments, but Garrison seeks to apply this framework meaningfully to online learning and raise further questions for research (p. 64).

Intended Audience: This article highlights the importance of different aspects of online learning, and therefore would be of interest to researchers, teachers, course designers and evaluators of online learning environments.

Purpose: Using the Community of Inquiry model, Garrison investigates three areas of the online learning environment where potential issues may arise:

• ·         Social Presence:  Potential problems may arise when a clear sense of community is not built.  Learning may not be maximised if the community does not make the shift from being merely social in nature to intellectual in nature (p. 64).

• ·         Cognitive Presence:  A goal in online learning is to move beyond information transfer to what Garrison calls Resolution Phase thinking.  Issues may arise in achieving this goal if the course design does not allow for students to achieve shared intellectual goals (p. 66). 

• ·         Teaching Presence:  Without specific guidance from the teacher, students can potentially dominate online conversation with never-ending monologues, thereby weakening a sense of community and lessening the chances of the class moving to resolution thinking (p. 67).

Comparison to other work: This work conducts more of a literature review than empirical research.  The pedagogical background presented in this study aligns strongly with Constructivism and the Community of Inquiry framework originally proposed for the traditional classroom by John Dewey (p. 62).  The potential issues identified in e-learning environments agree with the work of Swan (2001) and Brown & Voltz (2005).

Supporting the topic: This article addresses key issues that need to be considered in the development of asynchronous online environments.  The research presented here focuses on the design of e-learning spaces and how they can be improved for the future. 

Conclusion

Although online learning has been around for quite a long time (Weston 2009), actually implementing it is still relatively new for many educational practitioners, especially those who have been using the same curriculum and pedagogy for many years.  What is encouraging about this body of research is that whilst engaging in online teaching and learning may require the acquisition and development of new technological skills, the educational foundation is the same (Pallof & Pratt, 2004).  The greatest example in the literature that has been explored in this paper is developing a sense of community, (the social presence aspect of the online Community of Inquiry), within a learning environment (Anderson et al, 2001, Garrison et al, 1999, den Exter et al, 2012, Garrison 2007, Kreijns et al, 2014, Mazoue, 1999, Palloff & Pratt, 2004, Rourke et al, 1999, Swan, 2001, Weston, 2009).  

Good practitioners already know how to do this.  It just takes a little tweaking to apply this knowledge to a new context—the online learning environment!  It is hoped that after reviewing this literature, teachers will better understand how to improve course design, teaching presence, and a sense of community to create a better online learning experience for their students.

References

Anderson, T, Rourke, L, & Garrison, DR (2001), ‘Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context,’ Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 5 no.2, pp 1-17.

Brown, AR & Voltz, BD (2005), ‘Elements of Effective e-Learning Design,’  International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-10.

Brown, JS, Collins, A, & Duguid, S (1989), ‘Situated learning and the culture of learning,’ Educational Researcher, vol. 18, no.1, pp. 32-42.  

Collis B, & Moonen, J, (2001), Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations, RoutledgeFarmer, London.

den Exter, K., Rowe, S., Boyd, W., & Lloyd, D. (2012). ‘Using Web 2.0 Technologies for Collaborative Learning in Distance Education: Case Studies from an Australian University,’  Future Internet, vol. 4, pp. 216-237.

Garrison, R, Anderson, T, & Archer, W, (1999). ‘Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education,’ The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 2, no. 2-3, pp. 87-105.

Garrison, D. R. (2007). ‘Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues.’ Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 11, no.1, pp. 61-72.

Greeno, JG, Collins, AM & Resnick, LB (1996), ‘Cognition and Learning,’ In D.C.

Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, Macmillan, New York, pp. 15-46.

Gunawardena, C, Lowe, C, & Carabajal, K (2000), ‘Evaluating online learning: Models and methods,’ In C. Crawford et al, (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000, pp. 1677-1684, Chesapeake, VA.

Kreijns, K, Van Acker, F, Vermeulen, M, & Van Buuren, H (2014), ‘Community of Inquiry: Social Presence Revisited’  E-Learning and Digital Media, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5-18.

Loveless, A (2011), ‘Technology, pedagogy and education: reflections on the

accomplishment of what teachers know, do and believe in a digital age’ Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 301-316.

Ma, Y, & Wang, L (2012), ‘The Study of College English Teaching Method in Collaborate Learning Environment,’ Based on Wiki: 2012 International Conference on EducationTechnology and Management Engineering, Lecture Notes in Information Technology, vols.16-17.

Mazoue, JG (1999), ‘The essentials of effective online instruction.’ Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 104-110.

Meyer, K, & Jones, S (2012), ‘Do Students Experience Social Intelligence, Laughter, and Other Emotions Online?’  Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 99-111.

Palloff, R, & Pratt K (2004), Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community, San Franscisco, CA, Josey-Bass.

Reilly, J, Vandenhouten, C, & Gallagher-Lepak, S (2012), ‘Faculty Development for E-Learning: A Multi-Campus Community of Practice Approach,’ Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 99-110.

Rourke, L, Anderson, T, Garrison, D.R., (1999),  ‘Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing,’ Journal of Distance Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 50-71.

Swan, K., (2001), ‘Virtual interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses’ Distance Education, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 306-331.

Weston, AT (2009), Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World : Evaluating Online Learning : Challenges and Strategies for Success, New York, NY, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Zingaro, D & Oztok, M (2012), ‘Interaction in an Asynchronous Online Course: A Synthesis of Qualitative Predictors,’ Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 71-82.