![Purpose ,[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Dernier
Dernier (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Manipulating Teacher Presence In Online Learning
- 1. Manipulating Teacher Presence in Online Learning: The Impact on Learning Effectiveness Kathleen M. Sheridan Melissa A. Kelly L. K. Curda
- 14. Initial Results: Enrollment in Prior Online Courses
- 16. Initial Results: Expected Hours and Effort
- 17. Midpoint and Endpoint Results: Sense of Community -0.52 6.54 40.35 5.94 40.01 Learning -0.03 6.44 37.80 6.26 37.79 Connectedness t SD Mean SD Mean Scale Moderate Teaching High Teaching
- 18. Midpoint and Final Results: Change in Sense of Community
- 19. Midpoint and Final Results: Presence Ratings -0.81 0.58 4.31 0.56 4.26 Cognitive Presence 1.10 0.60 4.05 0.60 4.10 Social Presence 0.50 0.66 4.37 0.60 4.39 Teaching Presence t SD Mean SD Mean Scale Moderate Teaching High Teaching
- 20. Midpoint and Final Results: Change in Sense of Presence
- 21. Midpoint and Final Results: Presence Ratings Cognitive Social Teaching Presence -1.64 0.61 4.40 0.52 4.31 Resolution -1.62 0.59 4.37 0.57 4.27 Integration -0.90 0.58 4.37 0.58 4.31 Exploration 0.54 0.67 4.19 0.67 4.22 Triggering Event 1.52 0.73 4.04 0.65 4.14 Group Cohesion -0.42 0.62 4.26 0.73 4.24 Open Communication 1.21 0.74 3.86 0.70 3.94 Affective Expression 0.79 0.79 4.25 0.74 4.31 Direct Instruction 0.48 0.71 4.33 0.64 4.35 Facilitation -0.07 0.57 4.52 0.59 4.52 Design and Organization t SD Mean SD Mean Subscale Moderate Teaching High Teaching
- 22. Midpoint and Final Results: Change in Sense of Presence
- 24. Results: Correlations among Midpoint Presence Subscales **Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Cognitive Presence Social Presence Teaching Presence Scale Resolution (R) .78** Integration (I) .69** .83** Exploration (E) .65** .73** .68** Triggering Event (TE) .60** .70** .70** .71** Group Cohesion (GC) .62** .67** .64** .61** .71** Open Communication (OC) .48** .61** .64** .63** .67** .59** Affective Expression (AE) .56** .62** .59** .67** .59** .53** .64** Direct Instruction (DI) .66** .69** .61** .79** .66** .60** .69** .80** Facilitation (F) .55** .61** .54** .67** .54** .48** .60** .78** .74** Design and Organization ( DO) .55** .64** .58** .63** .701** .66** .59** .66** .61** .64** Learning (L) .40** .48** .52** .58** .72** .50** .68** .61** .58** .52** .76** Connectedness (C) R I E TE GC OC AE DI F DO L Subscale
- 25. Results: Correlations among Endpoint Presence Subscales **Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Resolution (R) .807** Integration ( I) .82** .86** Exploration (E) .80** .79** .80** Triggering Event (TE) Cognitive Presence .72** .68** .77** .75** Group Cohesion (GC) .57** .54** .53** .57** .67** Open Communication ( OC) .55** .66** .64** .59** .70** .52** Affective Expression ( AE) Social Presence .79** .81** .78** .76** .69** .53** .72** Direct Instruction ( DI) .78** .80** .78** .75** .71** .50** .69** .92** Facilitation ( F) .74** .68** .66** .61** .62** .50** .59** .81** .86** Design and Organization (DO) Teaching Presence .63** .66** .66** .63** .63** .40** .55** .71** .72** .67** Learning (L) .60** .67** .72** .70** .74** .42** .71** .63** .64** .56** .63** Connectedness (C) R I E TE GC OC AE DI F DO L Subscale Scale
- 26. Results: Changes in ARCS Scales > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.01 p 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 Effect size 4.04 4.25 4.54 3.96 Mean Endpoint 0.73 0.60 0.52 0.69 SD 0.67 0.07 0.79 5.30 F HF Significance 0.71 3.93 0.60 3.97 Satisfaction 0.50 4.26 0.53 4.25 Confidence 0.47 4.54 0.42 4.59 Relevance 0.62 4.16 0.49 4.13 Attention SD Mean SD Mean Scale Midpoint Initial
- 27. Results: Changes in ARCS Scales
Notes de l'éditeur
- Initial survey Demographics Instructional preferences Student expectations Course Interest Survey Midpoint Survey and Final Survey Community of Inquiry Survey Social, cognitive, and teaching presence Classroom Community Scale -Connectedness and learning Course Interest Survey Attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction
- 71 students who completed all 3 surveys
- This is a dependent ,means t test to see if the sense of connectedness and sense of learning community changed from high to moderate teacher presence. Sense of learning community did change however it is not significant. And there were No mean differences significant at 0.05 level Their sense of learning community is the community fostering learning as a whole rather than just “my” learning.
- The fact that sense of learning community went up could just be because the students have been in the class together for a whole term. Change is not significant anyway.
- No mean differences significant at 0.05 level
- No mean differences significant at 0.05 level
- How a students sense of connectedness is correlated to Learning, Teaching presence, social Presence and Cognitive Presence. These are all significant at the.01 level. This means that there is a relationship between my sense of connectedness in this course and teaching presence, learning, social and cognitive presence.
- How is my sense of learning connectedness related to each of these aspects of teaching, social and cognitive presence at the mid point (after high teaching presence).
- This slide shows the same thing at the endpoint.
- These are the things that the course interest survey measured. The only item that was significant is attention. Attention is defined as Capturing the students attention, creating curiosity etc. How well the course “gets their attention” This chart shows that attention goes up at the midpoint but slightly down by the end.
- Is there a relationship between how interesting perceive the course at the start and my sense of community either at the midpoint or end of the course. Only the significant correlations are reported here. My
- This slide shows that this is significant at the .001 level.
- There is a positive relationship between perceived learning and sense of connectedness at mod as well as high teaching presence conditions
- This slide is telling us that a students perception of perceived learning at both the mid and endpoint are correlated to each of the items listed under the various categories My perceived learning at the middle of the course is not related to my perceived learning, but it is at the end point
- The items that are listed had the highest mean rating of importance. These items also had the lowest variability (standard deviation less than 1). This slide shows us that the majority of the students thought that these items were very important. We have collapsed the items into a category we call: “Making sure the students know what is expected in all aspects of the course (i.e., participation, requirements, due dates, topics, goals etc.) and following through
- This slide shows us the items that had the lowest mean rating of importance. We chose any items that had a variation above 3. We have collapsed the items into a category we call: Mimicking “Face –to Face” Item number one is a special item in that we had other items that show us that student want a response sooner that a week, thus, one week is too long.
- This slide shows us the items that had the most variation among the ratings. We chose any items that had a variation above 3. We have collapsed the items into a category we call: Mimicking “Face –to Face” Item number one is a special item in that we had other items that show us that student want a response sooner that a week, thus, one week is too long.