Figure 1. Extract of the example discussion, stored and coded in Atlas.ti |
In the example I have used the message as the unit of analysis, coding each with what appears to be the most relevant classification from the three presences. If there is no evidence of a presence in a particular message, then I have coded it as Other. Figure 2 below shows the coding results from the example which contained 11 messages in a single thread:
Figure 2. Summary of the coding for the example discussion |
It has been a useful process and I have noted the following from this first trial:
- Coding is a very subjective process and the results will depend heavily on my interpretations. This is not made easy by the fact that one only sees the explicit part of the learning process, that is surfaced by the learners and codified in their messages to the forum. I am sure that a lot remains tacit and unexpressed.
- Reading Garrison et al's paper again (2001) helped me to see the messages not as individual, unconnected thoughts, but as part of an ongoing process. To be successful at coding you need to see what happens before and afterwards
- The cognitive presence model of Garrison et al (2001) is premised on learning involving critical thinking. Nevertheless it reminds me rather of single-loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978) and in line with the thinking of Persico et al (2010), in their application of the CoI model, I added an additional code to capture meta-cognition. Meta-cognition is important for competence development.
- Social presence is very difficult to assess and intuitively I feel that a message which starts with a 'Hello Carla' or 'Hi everyone' but makes no other reference to people or the group, does not exhibit sufficient social presence to warrant coding.
- Teaching presence seems more straightforward, however one needs to be vigilant for mesages reflecting support and encouragement by peers, as these are also valid examples of teaching presence.
- Atalas.ti certainly helps with the management of the process. It does not help with the coding, however, which remains an intellectual, time consuming activity.
- I chose an example thread to code which is quite long (eleven messages) but yet representative of what we can see in the forums. The results of the coding (Figure 2) suggest that critical thinking took place, as there are three messages reflecting integration and resolution. In addition, two messages suggested metacognition, with the teachers reflecting on what they had learned as a result of the LE. This suggests that the LE did indeed lead to competence development.
So overall a positive first foray into the world of online discussion coding.
Brian
-----
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), pp.1-17
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105
Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23
Persico, D., Pozzi, F. & Sarti, L. (2010) 'Monitoring collaborative activities in computer supported collaborative learning'. Distance Education, 31 (1), pp.5 - 22
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (1999) 'Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing'. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), pp.50-71
No comments:
Post a Comment