Online and Blended Learning Approaches and

Outcomes

Zehra Akyol & Randy Garrison

Theoretical Background Research Question Methodology Results Discussion Conclusion

AGENDA

Community of Inquiry Framework◦ Cognitive Presence – Practical Inquiry Model

Deep and surface learning approaches and outcomes.

Theoretical Background

Community of Inquiry Framework

Social PresenceThe ability of participantsto identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities.

Cognitive PresenceThe extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry.

Teaching PresenceThe design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose

of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.

Practical Inquiry Model

The Practical Inquiry Model includes four phases in describing cognitive presence in an educational context generally and online learning specifically (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).◦ Triggering event◦ Exploration◦ Integration◦ Resolution

Cognitive Presence

Schrire (2004) found that the PI Model “to be the most relevant to the analysis of the cognitive dimension and represents a clear picture of the knowledge-building processes occurring in online discussion” (p. 491).

Marton and Saljo (1976) studied the strategies students used to approach learning and associated these findings with the qualitative differences in learning outcomes. The researchers found two levels of student information processing which they labeled as deep and surface.

◦ When students approach learning in a deep manner, learning outcomes were qualitatively enhanced; that is, the quality of outcomes were of a higher order.

“What is learned (the outcome or the result) and how it is learned (the act or process) are two inseparable aspects of learning“

(Marton, 1988)

Deep and Surface Learning

Do online and blended collaborative communities of inquiry create cognitive presence that supports higher-order learning processes and outcomes?◦ Is cognitive presence associated with perceived

learning outcomes and grades, ◦ Are there differences between online and blended

design approaches in terms of the strength of cognitive presence and perceived learning outcomes and grades?

Research Question

CONTEXT Two courses on the same topic

◦ Online course -16 students◦ Blended Course – 12 students

Both courses designed to develop a community of inquiry

Nine weeks of discussions Peer reviewed article critique Course redesign prototype project

Methodology

Learning Processes◦ Transcript Analysis of Online Discussions◦ Interviews with Students and course instructor

Learning Outcomes◦ Self report of learning◦ Perceived Cognitive Presence (CoI Survey)◦ Final Grades

Methodology

COGNITIVE

PRESENCE

First 3 weeks of Discussion

Second 3 weeks of discussion

Last 3 weeks of discussion TOTAL

OnlineBlende

d OnlineBlende

d OnlineBlende

d OnlineBlende

dTriggering Event 15 % 2 % 7 % 5 % 8 % 5 % 10 % 4 %

Exploration 18 % 16 % 30 % 16 % 27 % 10 % 25 % 14 %

Integration 47 % 55 % 45 % 43 % 52 % 57 % 48 % 52 %

Resolution 7 % 6 % 10 % 8 % 6 % 4 % 7 % 6 %No category detected 14 % 21 % 9 % 28 % 8 % 23 % 10 % 24 %

Results-Learning Processes

****Exploration (p=.004) and integration (p=.004) phases were found significantly different between courses

“the cognitive presence was probably the best part, because the way the course was structured and designed, I felt like I was actually constructing my knowledge of blended learning as I was going through the course.” (One student’s comment)

Students’ comments about cognitive presence noted the importance of resources and learning activities in order to develop deep approaches to learning in both courses. ◦ “if you do not have the activities that are directed to push

students intentionally through four phases of inquiry model, learning does not happen”. (Course Instructor)

Results-Learning Processes

Perceived Cognitive Presence

Perceived Learning

Satisfaction

Online Course 4.07 4.20 4.47

Blended Course 4.31 4.58 4.75

Significance p=.209 p=.154 p=.207

Results-Learning Outcomes

Results-Learning Outcomes

N MeanOnline course 16 94.22Blended Course 12 93.83

Students indicated that they could learn in the course during the interviews.

Student’s final grades

Online Course Blended Course

Perceived Learning Satisfaction Perceived

Learning Satisfaction

Cognitive Presence

.67

p=.007

.65

p=.009

.81

p=.001

.64

p=.024

Results-Correlations

Why the resolution phase has the least activity in both learning environments?

Why integration phase is significantly higher in the blended course?

Are the processes described by the PI Model associated with actual higher-order learning outcomes and proxy measures such as perceived learning?

Discussion

There is a strong relationship between collaborative constructivism and higher-order learning outcomes.

◦ Course Design basing on CoI approach was successful in both course leading to high levels of cognitive presence, perceived learning and learning outcomes.

◦ The blended format creates better conditions for critical inquiry and increases the perceptions of presences, satisfaction and learning.

Conclusion

Thank You