The fourth topic of the ONL course was focused on designing the courses for online and blended (i.e., “the organic integration of thoughtfully selected and complementary face-to-face and online approaches” as defined bay Garrison & Vaughan [2008: 148]) environments. The leitmotif of this week has been the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework, which was introduced by Garrison and colleagues and based on Dewey’s original idea that an individual learner’s development could be better fostered in a community environment where there is high flow/sharing of information, mutual support, coordination and commitment (Flock, 2020). CoI framework consists of three presences: (1) Cognitive Presence, i.e., sustaining reflection and discourse in the community to develop and confirm meaning, (2) Social Presence, i.e., participants’ ability to present themselves as ‘real people’ so that a shared sense of identity and trust could emerge, (3) Teaching Presence, i.e., facilitating and channeling the first two forms of presences in order to reach the learning objectives. Each of these presences are multidimensional and consist of subcategories and components, which were clearly defined in a nice introductory presentation by M. Cleveland-Innes. The framework is also practically useful thanks to a diagnostic survey that could help a teacher to assess the extent to which these three forms of presences exist in his/her course and adopt relevant remedies where needed.

Compared to the reading material of earlier weeks, I find this topic to be more tightly and clearly organized and around a specific and well-established framework. As a result, It has also led me to think about how could I make use of this framework when transforming my teaching to an online of blended context. For me, it is easier to think of how to maintain Cognitive Presence in online environment. As far as I have the right sets of puzzles and questions in my bag, much of what I use to trigger curiosity and ignite the urge to explore and resolve questions could easily be transferred (with due adaptations, of course) to an online platform. In fact, advances in technology and new tools of communication and interaction could make it easier (and more fun) for learners to pursue the mental challenges I present before them. Similarly, and again thanks to new communication technologies, we have a lot of options to create a fully digital environment where learners could access all the support they might need as they go along. While writing these lines, I spontaneously remembered my own experiences a student when the only opportunities to interact with teachers were either during the lectures or visiting them during their office hours (yes, I am talking about pre-internet era). Today, we have various (and perhaps too many?) points of contact and interaction among individuals, which enable the design and delivery of a course to be more learner friendly and supportive.

However, I find it a lot more thorny to manage social presence especially once teaching/learning moves to the digital realm. There are several reasons for that. First, compared to online media, face-to-face communication provides a richer environment of exchange. After all, no matter how it is well-crafted, an emoji can never be a sufficiently good substitute for a genuine emotion one can express (sans words) in real life. The richness of exchange is an important factor to foster an affective climate where participants could show emotional engagement, develop a sense of trust and identification and, thereby, feel comfortable with making affective commitment to their CoI. Second, digital means of communication could cause participants become more anonymous and aloof. In a fully online course, I am basically a bunch of (moving and talking) pixels with a name tag attached next to it. Apparently, as far as a course is designed to trigger curiosity and urge to explore , students can share my ideas, thoughts and arguments to similar extents whether it happens in a Zoom meeting or a physical classroom. But, it is a much longer and complicated journey to start relating to others on an emotional level in a digitized environment. Last, but not the least, it is very difficult to “read” the situation in the absence of tacit and non-verbal social cues. In fact, this has been one issue I had with the aforementioned CoI survey. For me, it is very difficult to know if I can provide correct answers to the survey questions pertaining to Social Presence. For example, how can I really know about students’ level of psychological comfort with interacting and disagreeing with others without losing a sense of trust (Questions #12 and #26)? Similarly, do I have enough insights as to whether “students feel their point of view is acknowledged by other course participants” (Question #22)? These questions are already difficult to answer in offline environments, and it becomes even more challenging when student-student and student-teacher interactions take place under the constraints imposed by digital environment. Thus, despite its face validity, the diagnostic survey does not easily lend itself to a proper use.

Perhaps most of the reservations I summarized above emerge out of my own status quo bias. My own formal education was of an old-school type with very limited online component. Similarly (until taking the ONL course) I never had a classmate whom I have not physically met. Since I feel it all worked well for me, it is not easy for me to think outside that box and have skepticism towards alternative modes of learning. Whether or not I like it, the change has already long begun and I need to adapt myself to this ‘new normal’ to remain relevant and helpful for my current and future students. So, I feel like I am turning the first page of a new chapter in my book, and yes it feels like an exciting challenge.

References

Chan, D. K. S., & Cheng, G. H. L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities at different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 305-320.

Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135-153.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.