Let’s collectively answer the student call to action in response to “not another discussion board posting”, by using nonverbal immediacy behaviours that establish a community of inquiry and lead students to deeper processing of learning. “My online professor’s virtual office hours are on Zoom!”
Description:
This presentation will review the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework as a conceptualization of online teaching. The use of immediacy behaviours will be presented and through speed dating, attendees will actively share their use of nonverbal immediacy behaviours they use to impact student online learning and enhance social, cognitive, and teaching presence. The importance of pre-planning when, how, and what strategies to use will be highlighted.
Learning Outcomes:
1. Acquire an understanding of the Community of Inquiry Framework and its’ application within the online learning environment.
2. Reflect upon nonverbal immediacy behaviours that can be used to demonstrate social, cognitive, and teaching presence.
3. Engage in speed dating to share experiences of useful strategies that nurture online presence and deep processing.
Background
Discussion board use in the online environment can work well when used in moderation. Students often express frustration with the mechanical requirements (quantity vs quality of postings), perceived overuse and lack of true engagement, or deeper processing. Online learning is getting lost in a wasteland of buzzwords (Chew, 2018)- returning to the basics of teaching, exploring ways to engage online learners to positively affect student engagement and motivation to learn, understanding metacognition, all have the potential to enable a positive impact on the depth of student processing of information. Despite a menu of nonverbal immediacy behaviours that can be used to foster presence, they are often absent in online courses (Dixson, Greenwell, Rogers-Stacy, Weister & Lauer, 2017). Nonverbal behaviours can be just as powerful, if not more so, than verbal behaviours when communicating with students.
There has been an overreliance on the use of discussion boards, to the point where students are just plain tired of posting to the board, course after course after course. Often grading of postings relies on the quantity or length, to the detriment of deep processing of information. It’s little wonder that students are bored with this type of learning activity. Zhou (2015) conducted a systematic review of empirical studies related to interaction in an internet-mediated discussion board and found a potential relationship between clear directions related to discussion board requirements and the level of critical thinking or deep processing that students engage in during an online course.
The CoI Framework includes three presences that are paramount to providing high-quality online learning experiences: social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010). Cognitive presence is the degree to which students can construct meaning through online communication. Teacher immediacy behaviours can enhance critical thinking and self-reflection in the online environment. Both students and teachers can establish social presence with sharing personal characteristics, for example, a Wiki introduction page, an audio or video clip. Social presence can be accomplished in asynchronous course offerings (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). The implications, benefits and risks of establishing social presence online will be discussed. Lastly, teaching presence refers to the course design and activities that enable students to meet the learning outcomes, that is, how is the course planned, implemented and evaluated? Speed dating will be used to engage participants in sharing their online pedagogical practices related to the use of immediacy behaviours to establish teaching presence. Research has found an interconnectedness between student engagement and enhanced online learning (Smith, & Crowe, 2017).
Immediacy behaviours can be verbal or nonverbal actions that transmit a positive message that can impact student motivation (Fallah, 2014). Three categories of immediacy behaviours and their use in the online arena will be presented: tone (figurative language, aesthetics, visual imagery, typographic design, color, cohesion), chronemics (role of time), and feedback (Dixson et al., 2017).
Often students are attracted to online courses because of their asynchronous nature but this does not have to translate to a mere “content dump” type of course. Engaging students in online learning to create a community on inquiry can be done using immediacy behaviours. Research has found an interconnectedness between student engagement and enhanced, positive online learning encounters (Smith, & Crowe, 2017).
Conclusion
The presentation will highlight the CoI Framework and how immediacy behaviours can be leveraged to increase student engagement and deeper processing in the online environment. Participants will engage in speed dating to share strategies that they use in their online courses to positively impact cognitive, social and teaching presence. Lastly, student evaluations of the use of select nonverbal immediacy behaviours will be shared with suggestions for future improvement.
References
Chew, S. (2018). Teaching and learning: Lost in a buzzword wasteland. Keynote address, The Teaching Professor Conference, June 2018, Atlanta, GA.
Dixson, M., Greenwell, M., Rogers-Stacy, C., Weister, T., & Lauer, A. (2017). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: Bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom. Communication Education, 66(1), 37-53. doi: org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1209222
Fallah, N. (2014). Willingness to communicate in English, communication self-confidence, motivation, shyness and teacher immediacy among Iranian English-major undergraduates: A structural equation modeling approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 140–147.
Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring casual relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1/2), 31-36. doi: org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.
Smith, Y., & Crowe, A. (2017). Nurse educator perceptions of the importance of relationship in online teaching and learning. Journal of Professional Nursing, 33(1), 11-19. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.06.004
Zhou, H. (2015). A systematic review of empirical studies on participants’ interactions in internet-mediated discussion boards as a course component in formal higher education settings. Online Learning, 19(3). Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/49