# data[].attributes.headline
Practical Issues of Framing Learning Objectives - Infographic

# data[].attributes.subject
Practical Issues of Framing Learning Objectives - Infographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Practical Issues Of Framing Learning Objectives For Online Learning-Infographic

What Are The Learning Objectives?

A learning objective is a statement, in specific and measurable terms, that describes what learners will be able to do on completion of training.

What Do Learning Objectives Help Finalize In An eLearning Course?

Scope of the course

Instructional strategy

Evaluation methodology

Cost and duration of the course

Common Pitfalls To Avoid While Framing Learning Objectives

Pitfall 1
Avoid false performances such as:

Be able to understand...

Be able to appreciate...

Pitfall 2
Avoid false givens such as:

Given 3 days of instruction...

Given adequate practice...

Pitfall 3
Do not use vague terms that convey no meaning

Example: Have a profound awareness of the sales process

Pitfall 4
Do not focus on what instructors will do

Example: The facilitator will provide exposure to the steps involved in the sales process.

Tips To Follow While Framing Learning Objectives

1. Consider specific questions to keep learning objectives grounded.

2. Ensure objectives communicate the intent in clear terms and leave little room for misinterpretation.

3. Keep them simple and brief so that they are easily understandable.

4. Be specific about the performance of learners after taking the training.

5. Align every activity in the course with the learning objectives.

6. Make sure one learning objective refers to a single outcome.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Practical Issues Of Framing Learning Objectives For Online Learning - e-Learning Infographics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Practical Issues of Framing Learning Objectives for Online Learning. Learn the 4 common pitfalls to avoid while framing learning objectives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guide for Inclusive Teaching at Columbia

# data[].attributes.subject
Guide for Inclusive Teaching at Columbia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
eLearning tips | Our blog provides the latest best practices, tips, insights and thought leadership on modern corporate training, eLearning and mLearning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a new executive, you'll be entrusted with significant responsibilities and high expectations. To thrive in this challenging role, you need more than just technical skills; you need a holistic understanding of your own leadership, management, and organizational dynamics.

by Dr. Marina Theodotou

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here you can find the top articles about eLearning trends, concepts and methodologies plus many more!

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the learning styles myth appeals and how to persuade believers otherwise-Article

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the learning styles myth appeals and how to persuade believers otherwise-Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Large numbers of students, teachers, administrators, and researchers in education, among others, believe that individuals have particular 'learning styles', and that learning will be more effective if educators try to match their teaching approaches to these learning styles (Knoll et al., 2017; Newton & Miah, 2017; Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2021). One systematic review, collating the results of 37 studies, found that 89.1% of teachers in 18 countries believed in the idea of learning styles (Newton & Salvi, 2020). While it is true that students differ from one another in ways that can influence learning (e.g., they will have more or less prior knowledge of a given course's content), the idea of learning styles itself has been labelled a 'neuromyth' (Kirschner, 2017; OECD, n.d.), and the research backing this assertion continues to accumulate (e.g., Cimermanová, 2018; Husmann & O'Loughlin, 2019; Moser & Zumbach, 2018; Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2018; Rogowsky et al., 2015). Teaching to the alleged learning styles of students seems to have little to no effect on learning (Pashler et al., 2009). Despite the lack of evidence, many continue to believe in some version of the idea of learning styles (Martin, 2010; Newton & Miah, 2017). Even many researchers continue to uncritically mobilize the idea in their work (e.g., Amponsah, 2020; Ata & Cevik, 2019; Azzi et al., 2020; Buckley & Doyle, 2017; Chaudhuri, 2021; Kulkarni et al., 2022, Almsari, 2022).

The persistence of the belief in learning styles despite the lack of evidence has generated an array of studies examining the nature of this belief: how widespread it is ( where and among who) (e.g., Dekker et al., 2012; Dekker & Kim, 2022a); the precise content of this belief ( what), which may differ from case to case (e.g., Nancekivell et al., 2020); the history ( when) that led to its emergence and popularization (e.g., Fallace, 2019; Robinson, 2022); and why exactly it seems to be so appealing (e.g., Dekker & Kim, 2022b). The primary aim of these kinds of studies is to gain insight into how the belief in learning styles can be overturned, given how its mobilization can waste scarce resources in education or, worse, hamper effective teaching and learning. Focusing on understanding why this belief is so appealing is particularly important, because revealing the reasons, intuitions, and sensibilities motivating the adoption of this belief, or its maintenance despite the evidence, can help teacher educators develop an approach that would speak directly to these reasons, intuitions, and sensibilities-acknowledging them, bringing them into the open, and addressing them explicitly. Some of these reasons, intuitions, and sensibilities may even be valid, or at least partially valid, and need not be dismissed out of hand, which can be counterproductive in helping someone overcome a false belief. Respecting the valid reasons, intuitions, and sensibilities held by an individual is ultimately a more educational approach to this issue. Therefore, exploring why the learning styles myth is so appealing is significant because it can help us better understand how to help others overcome this belief in an educationally appropriate manner.

This paper, then, delves deeper into the question of why the idea of learning styles seems so attractive to so many, particularly to teachers, as well as some of those engaged in educating or supporting them, whether directly or indirectly (administrators, teacher educators, researchers, publishers, etc.). I am focusing primarily on teachers in part because this is a group for which we have clear data indicating that a rather large percentage (over 90% in some places, Newton & Salvi, 2020) believe in learning styles, but also because this is the population that is directly in touch with the group most harmed by this neuromyth-students themselves-and therefore in the best position to help students overcome it. Of course, many of those who support teachers, directly or indirectly, are certainly perpetuating the myth, and therefore also bear responsibility (perhaps more responsibility than teachers, given their position of authority vis-à-vis teachers), so I will consider some of these other groups as well at different points throughout the paper.

There are many reasons why someone might come to believe in learning styles, and several different kinds of intuitions or sensibilities might reinforce this belief. In this paper, I explore a subset of the reasons, intuitions, and sensibilities underlying the adoption and maintenance of the belief in learning styles, which appear to be somewhat neglected in the literature, namely, moral intuitions. The reason for this focus is that moral intuitions are thought to be a particularly powerful form of motivation, deeply bound up with our beliefs about who we are and how we should live our lives (Taylor, 1989). If I have a strong sense of justice, for example, and I feel that a particular policy would cause or perpetuate injustice, I may form a belief that this policy should be avoided, even if I am offered evidence to the contrary. Assuming in this situation that I am in the wrong, to shove further evidence down my throat may not be the best way to convince me-although offering me further evidence may be part of a broader strategy. This broader strategy should instead center the idea of speaking to my sense of justice, perhaps showing me, for example, that the policy in question would in fact remedy existing injustices. Speaking directly to my moral intuition as opposed to dismissing it is a more promising strategy. This is why this article is focused on the moral intuitions motivating the belief in learning styles.

Examining the research on learning styles through the lens of Charles Taylor's (1989) philosophical analysis of modern moral selfhood-which paints a convincing picture of the role of moral intuitions in our thinking as well as of the moral horizons within which we operate in modernity-I identify four moral intuitions or sensibilities that can be at play (these categories are not mutually exclusive): (1) the desire for rational control, (2) our sense of justice, (3) the feeling that everyone is unique, and (4) a reverence for the natural. Taylor (1989) identifies and describes these moral intuitions, among others, and suggests that they help constitute modern moral selfhood. As I will explain in more detail below, one or more of these four moral intuitions is usually mobilized by people who believe in learning styles, which explains in part why people find the idea of learning styles so appealing. Finally, I argue that, in addition to other strategies we might use, we would do well to speak to one or more of these intuitions if we are to truly help teachers and others overcome the belief in learning styles in an educationally appropriate way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the learning styles myth appeals and how to persuade believers otherwise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many teachers and researchers, among others, continue to believe, despite the lack of evidence, that learning will be more effective if educators matc...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simulations | SimBucket Science Simulations | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SimBucket has created a large number of original HTML5 physics, chemistry, and biology simulations. This curated group contains some of the most popular simulations from www.simbucket.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Anatomy & Physiology Course for Everyone! | Visible Body Learn Site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Visible Body Learn Site is our totally free introduction to each human body system, allowing anybody anywhere to easily engage with our world-class visual human biology content.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Postach.io | The Evernote Powered Blogging Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The easiest way to blog. Turn an Evernote notebook into a beautiful blog or web site.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The purpose of these resources is to provide broad coverage of pedagogical and andragogical topics that are pertinent to those who interact with students and wish to expand their knowledge and practice when working with students in the digital age. Through a combination of research studies, white papers, a workbook, webinars, and publications, this collection of resources supports traditional-aged and adult learners, or contemporary learners, across multiple modalities.

Research Studies, Reports, and White Papers

This white paper provides an overview of critical terms, legal precedents, and other considerations to improve the educational experiences of learners with disabilities. Read more

Millions of students, workers, educators, and employers who make decisions in the convoluted U.S. credentials marketplace are greatly hindered by the lack of information on the nature of their options Read more

This study provides actionable data, rich case studies and best practice recommendations for institutions looking to scale digital learning. Read more

Searchable Research Collections

Publications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OLC Research Center for Digital Learning & Leadership - Teaching & Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The purpose of these resources is to provide broad coverage of pedagogical and andragogical topics that are pertinent to those who interact with students and wish to expand their knowledge and practice when working with students in the digital age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sessions on the Live from DevLearn stage will be available both in-person and streamed for viewing online! Hear from leading companies about the latest learning technologies that will transform your work and discover best practices to inform your strategy.

Sessions on the Live from DevLearn stage will be available both in-person and streamed for viewing online! Hear from leading companies about the latest learning technologies that will transform your work and discover best practices to inform your strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Learning Guild: Community & Resources for Learning Professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Learning Guild is a community of practice for those supporting the design, development, strategy, and management of organizational learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For over 50 years, Training has been the go-to resource for training, human resources and business professionals in all industries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OpenStax | Free Textbooks Online with No Catch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OpenStax offers free college textbooks for all types of students, making education accessible & affordable for everyone. Browse our list of available subjects!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MIT OpenCourseWare is a web based publication of virtually all MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity

# data[].attributes.headline
Web 3.0 Explained: A Comprehensive Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
Web 3.0 Explained: A Comprehensive Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Web 3.0 has the potential to be just as disruptive and to usher in a significant paradigm shift as Web 2.0 did. The fundamental ideas of decentralization, openness and increased consumer usefulness form the foundation of Web 3.0. Web 3.0, often known as Web 3, is the next step in the development of the internet.

Imagine a new kind of Internet that accurately translates what you type and understands what you say, whether through text, voice, or other media, and where all of the content you consume is more personalized than ever before. In the evolution of the Internet, you are about to enter a new era. It's been termed Web 3.0.

But, exactly what is Web 3.0, how will it look, and how will it affect our lives? If you're curious to know the above, you have reached the right place. In this tutorial, you will get all the answers to your questions related to Web 3.0.

What Is Web 3.0 Technology?

It is anticipated that Web 3.0 will be:-

Open - Open-source software will be used to build content platforms.

Trustless - Everyone will use Zero Trust, and network protection will reach the edge.

Distributed - Interaction between devices, users, and services will be possible without a centralized authority's approval.

Blockchain technology will make it possible for users to communicate directly with one another throughout the next stage of the internet. Users will communicate by becoming a part of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), a group that is run and owned by its community.

Data belonging to the user will be protected via a network of openly available smart contracts. These contracts will be stored in a blockchain, which a decentralized network that nodes will control.

The following are further Web 3 forecasts:

All transactions will be tracked on a distributed ledger that uses blockchain technology, and data transfers will be decentralized.

Smart contracts that are open to everyone will relieve people of the need to rely on a centralized organization (like a bank) to maintain data integrity.

The entertainment sector will significantly increase its revenue from the metaverse.

Blockchain technology will make it possible for consumers to instantly produce digital goods and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which will protect intellectual property and personally identifiable information (PII).

Users' data will be able to be profited from.

What Is Web 3.0?

Tim Berners-Lee, a developer who created the WWW or World Wide Web, originally referred to Web 3.0 as the Semantic Web and saw an intelligent, self-sufficient, and open Internet that employed AI and machine learning to function as a "global brain" and interpret content conceptually and contextually.

Due to technological constraints, such as how expensive and challenging it is to translate human language into machine understandable language, this idealized version didn't quite work out.

Following is a list of typical Web 3.0 traits:

The semantic web is a development in online technology that enables people to produce, share, and connect material through search and analysis. Instead of using numbers and keywords, it is centered on word understanding.

It uses machine learning and artificial intelligence. The final result is the formation of Web 3.0 to grow smarter and more receptive to user demands. If these ideas are paired with Natural Language Processing (NLP), the result is a computer that uses NLP.

It illustrates how the Internet of Things connects various devices and applications (IoT). This procedure is made possible by semantic metadata, allowing for the efficient exploitation of all available data. In addition, anyone can access the internet from anywhere at any time without a computer or other smart device.

It gives users a choice to interact in public or in private without exposing them to dangers through a third party, providing "trustless" data.

3-D graphics are used. In fact, this is already evident in e-commerce, virtual tours, and computer gaming.

It makes participation easier without requiring consent from a ruling entity. It's without authorization.

It is applicable to:

Metaverses: A limitless, virtual environment that is 3D-rendered

Blockchain video games adhere to the NFTs' ideals by enabling users to possess actual ownership of in-game resources.

Digital infrastructure and privacy: Zero-knowledge proofs and more secure personal data are used in this application.

Financial decentralization. Peer-to-peer digital financial transactions, smart contracts, and cryptocurrencies are examples of this use.

Autonomous decentralized organizations. Online communities are owned by the community.

What Is Web 2.0?

If Web 1.0 consisted of a small group of individuals producing material for a bigger audience, Web 2.0 consists of many individuals producing even more content for an expanding audience. Web 2.0 places more emphasis on participation and contribution than Web 1.0 did on reading.

User-Generated Content (UGC), usability, interaction, and enhanced connectivity with other systems and devices are the main focuses of this Internet form. In Web 2.0, the experience of the user is everything. As a result, this Web form was in charge of establishing social media, collaborations, and communities. Web 2.0 is therefore regarded as the dominant method of web interaction for the majority of users in today's world.

Web 2.0 is described as "the participative social Web," whereas Web 1.0 was referred to as "the read-only Web." With the incorporation of web browser technologies like JavaScript frameworks, Web 2.0 is an improved and expanded version of its predecessor.

The typical traits of Web 2.0 are broken down as follows:

It includes dynamic content that reacts to user input

It uses developed application programming interfaces (API)

It encourages self-use and allows forms of interaction like podcasting, social media, tagging, blogging, commenting, curating with RSS, social networking, and web content voting

It offers free information sorting, allowing users to retrieve and classify data collectively

It employs developed application programming interfaces (API)

It uses developed information; it is used by society as a whole and is not just specific communities.

The Difference Between Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0

Despite only providing limited information and little to no user interaction, it was the first and most reliable internet in the 1990s.

Because of developments in web technologies such as Javascript, HTML5, CSS3, etc., and Web 2.0 made the internet a lot more interactive.

Web 3.0 is the next break in the evolution of the Internet, allowing it to understand data in a human-like manner.

Before, there was no such thing as user pages or just commenting on articles.

Social networks and user-generated content production have flourished because data can now be distributed and shared.

It will use AI technology, Machine Learning, and Blockchain to provide users with smart applications.

Consumers struggled to locate valuable information in Online 1.0 since there were no algorithms to scan through websites.

Many web inventors, including the above-mentioned Jeffrey Zeldman, pioneered the set of technologies used in this internet era.

This will enable the intelligent creation and distribution of highly tailored content to every internet user.

Key Features of Web 3.0

Although Web 3.0 has not yet been given a formal definition, it does have several distinguishing characteristics: -

Decentralization: A fundamental principle of Web 3.0. In Web 2.0, computers search for data that is kept at a fixed location, typically on a single server, using HTTP in the form of distinct web addresses. Information might be stored simultaneously in numerous locations and become decentralized with Web 3.0 since it would be found based on its content rather than a single location. This would give individuals more power by dismantling the enormous databases that internet goliaths like Meta and Google presently maintain.

With Web 3.0, users will be able to sell their own data through decentralized data networks, ensuring that they maintain ownership control. This data will be produced by various powerful computing resources, such as mobile phones, desktop computers, appliances, automobiles, and sensors.

Decentralization and open source software-based Web 3.0 will also be trustless (i.e., participants will be able to interact directly without going via a trusted intermediary) and permissionless (meaning that each individual can access without any governing body's permission). This means that Web 3.0 applications-also known as dApps-will operate on blockchains, decentralized peer-to-peer networks, or a hybrid of the two -such decentralized apps are referred to as dApps.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning: With the help of the Semantic Web and natural language processing-based technologies, Web 3.0 will enable machines to comprehend information similarly to humans. Web 3.0 will also make use of machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence (AI) that mimics human learning by using data and algorithms, gradually improving its accuracy. Instead of just targeted advertising, which makes up the majority of present efforts, these capabilities will result in faster and more relevant outcomes in a variety of fields like medical development and new materials.

Connectivity and ubiquity: With Web 3.0, content and information are more accessible across applications and with a growing number of commonplace devices connected to the internet. The Internet of Things is one such example.

Layers of Web 3.0

Web 3.0 is propelled by four new layers of technological innovation:

1. Edge Computing - While web 2.0 changed currently commoditized personal computer technology in data centers, web 3.0 pushes the data center out to the edge (i.e. edge computing) and into our hands.

2. Decentralized Data Network - Users will own their data on web 3.0 since data is decentralized. Different data generators can sell or share their data without losing ownership or relying on intermediaries using decentralized data networks.

3. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning - Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms have advanced to the level that they can now make useful and occasionally life-saving predictions and acts.

4. Blockchain - Blockchain is a decentralized technology that uses smart contracts to execute transactions. These smart contracts define the semantics of a web 3.0 application. As a result, everyone who wants to develop a blockchain application must use the shared state machine.

How Does Web 3.0 Work?

Your information is stored on your cryptocurrency notecase in web3. On web3, you'll interact with apps and communities through your wallet, and when you log off, you'll take your data with you. Since you are the owner of the data, you may theoretically choose whether to monetize it.

With our guiding principles established, we can start looking at how certain web3 development features are meant to accomplish these objectives.

Data ownership: When you use a platform like Facebook or YouTube, these businesses gather, own, and recoup your data. Your data is stored on your cryptocurrency wallet in web3. On web3, you'll interact with apps and communities through your wallet, and when you log off, you'll take your data with you. Since you are the owner of the data, you may theoretically choose whether to monetize it.

Pseudonymity: Privacy is a feature of your wallet, just as data ownership. Your wallet serves as your identification on web3, which makes it difficult to connect it to your actual identity. Therefore, even if someone can observe the activity of a wallet, they won't be able to identify your wallet. "My personal information is hidden, but my behavior is visible." It was quoted by Neuroth.

There are services that help customers connect to their cryptocurrency wallets used for illegal behavior. However, your identity is concealed for daily use.

Although wallets increase the level of privacy for bitcoin transactions, privacy coins like Zcash and Monero give transactions total anonymity. Blockchains for privacy coins allow observers to track transactions, but they are unable to view the wallets involved.

Web3 will feature decentralized autonomous entities running apps (DAOs). As a result, decisions are no longer made by a centralized authority but rather by users who own governance tokens, which may be acquired by taking part in the maintenance of these decentralized programmes or by purchasing them.

In a typical corporation, the CEO is responsible for implementing changes approved by the shareholders. Token holders in a DAO can vote on modifications that, if approved, are immediately incorporated into the DAO's code via a smart contract. Everyone gets access to the source code of a DAO since they are democratized.

How Will Web 3.0 Change Our Lives?

Due to its decentralized nature, which is made possible by distributed ledger technology and smart contracts, Web 3.0 is intended to produce sustainable results. It also lowers costs by doing away with middlemen, manual mediation, and arbitration.

For everybody, Web 3.0 offers a much more individualized surfing experience. Websites will be able to automatically adjust to our device, location, and any accessibility needs we may have, and web apps will become far more receptive to our usage patterns.

We believe that the emergence of Web 3.0 will improve our lives for the following three reasons, which we believe are fairly appropriate:

1. A More Customized Browsing Process

There is no denying the ease of being able to quickly click through to a particular offer for something you actually need or desire and that you would have missed otherwise, regardless of how intrusive those advertisements may occasionally feel.

2. Improved search

As was already mentioned, using a search engine in natural language is highly effective. The benefits go far beyond the consumer as the learning curve virtually disappears, and businesses are increasingly able to optimize their websites for search engines in a more organic way as opposed to using complicated keyword techniques.

3. More Advanced App Interfaces

The multidimensional Web 3.0 will help more than just websites; it will also enable web apps to provide users with far richer experiences. Consider a mapping service like Google, which can now include route planning, lodging suggestions, and real-time traffic updates in addition to the fundamentals of location search. Simply put, in the Web 2.0 age, this was not feasible.

Key Applications of Web 3.0

With blockchain at its core, Web 3.0 makes it possible for an expanding range of new apps and services, such as the following:

NFT: Non-fungible Tokens (NFTs) are tokens that are individually unique and are kept in a blockchain with a cryptographic hash.

DeFi: Decentralized blockchain technology is being utilized as the foundation for decentralized finance (DeFi), a new use case for Web 3.0 that allows for the provision of financial services beyond the constraints of conventional centralized banking infrastructure.

Cryptocurrency: A new universe of money that strives to be distinct from the traditional world of fiat cash is being created through Web 3.0 apps like cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

dApp: Decentralized applications (dApps) are programmes that run programmatically and are logged in an immutable ledger. They are built on top of the blockchain and use smart contracts to facilitate service delivery.

Chain-crossing bridges: In the Web 3.0 age, there are numerous blockchains, and cross-chain bridges provide some kind of connectivity between them.

DAOs: DAOs are poised to potentially take on the role of Web 3.0's governing bodies, offering some structure and decentralized governance.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Web 3.0

Advantages -

In terms of data security, end-users will benefit the most from data encryption.

Due to decentralized data storage, users will be able to access data in any situation. Users will receive multiple backups that will aid them if the server crashes.

Most blockchain systems are developed by non-profits, which provides an open-source blockchain platform that allows for collaborative design and development.

The data will be provided from any location and on any device.

Web 3.0 is useful for problem-solving and heavy knowledge-generation tasks.

Disadvantages -

To make the technology accessible to more people worldwide, the devices' capabilities and qualities will need to be expanded.

Any websites built on web 1.0 technology will become obsolete once web 3.0 is fully implemented on the Internet.

Web 3.0 technology is more intelligent, efficient, and accessible than in previous generations. However, the technology isn't quite ready for general use.

With easier access to a user's information and reduced privacy thanks to web 3.0, reputation management will be more important than ever.

The Future of the Internet

The world is on its way to an Internet where people have complete control over their data and privacy while also allowing companies to exploit it (or not). All of this will be made possible by blockchain technology.

As a result, web 3.0 will hasten the fair and transparent use of user data, ranging from personalized search results to cross-platform development tools and 3D graphics. The internet will become more immersive and engaging in the next years.

FAQs

1. What are Web 3.0 tools?

AI, semantic web, and omnipresent qualities may all be taken into consideration when designing Web 3.0. The rationale for AI stems from the need to give users faster access to more accurate data. An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered website ought to be able to sort through the data and present the information it thinks a particular visitor will find useful. Given that the results are websites that users have chosen, social bookmarking as a search engine can yield superior outcomes to Google. However, humans are also capable of manipulating these outcomes. In order to provide outcomes comparable to social media and social bookmarking but without negative feedback, AI could be used to differentiate the true results from the fakes.

Virtual assistants, a component that is already becoming popular as an aspect integrated into a device or through third-party apps, will also be introduced by an artificially intelligent web.

The goal of the semantic web is to organize and store data in a way that can be used to teach a system what a given piece of information means. In order to create and distribute better content, a website should be able to comprehend the language in the same way humans comprehend. AI can process information into knowledge only if it comprehends the information.

2. Is Web 3.0 the future of the internet?

The Web 3.0 leverages AI, Machine Learning and blockchain technology. It is expected to achieve real-world communication. Individuals will own the data, and they will be compensated for the time they spend on the internet. This sounds futuristic, and the data and privacy of the users will increase with the blockchain technology. Thus if all goes well, Web 3.0 will be the future of the internet.

3. How do I create a Web 3.0 website?

First, you need to buy an NFT domain name. Next, you can make a website. The thing to remember is that the website needs to be made in one of the three ways: -

Use existing templates on website builders.

Host the website on an InterPlanetary File System Protocol or IPFS.

Redirect to an existing Web 3.0 Website.

4. Why is Web 3.0 important?

The following are a few crucial aspects of Web 3.0 that help define what the third generation of the web is expected to be all about:

Decentralized: Web 3.0 will be decentralized in contrast to the past two generations of the web, which had heavily centralized governance and applications. A distributed method without a centralized authority will enable applications and services.

Blockchain-based: The development of decentralized applications and services is made possible by blockchain. In contrast to centralized database infrastructure, blockchain uses a distributed way to disseminate data and connections between services. In a decentralized environment, blockchain can also offer an immutable ledger of transactions and activities, assisting in the provision of verified authenticity.

Cryptocurrency-enabled: The use of cryptocurrencies, which primarily replaces the use of fiat money, is a key component of Web 3.0 services.

Artificially intelligent and autonomous: A key aspect of Web 3.0 is more automation overall, which will mostly be driven by AI.

Decipher the global craze surrounding Blockchain with the Blockchain Certification Training Course. Get trained today.

Conclusion

Web 3.0, sometimes known as Web 3, is the concept of the next generation of the web, in which most users will be connected via a decentralized network and have access to their own data. This article taught us about the technologies that are anticipated to advance and change in the upcoming years. Intelligent systems, semantic web, decentralization, metaverse, digital assets, and other emerging technologies will all be part of Web 3.0.

Whether Web 3.0 will be successful or not needs to be seen. But one thing most analysts agree is that the demand for data security will be of prime importance. It follows that there would be a great need for security specialists and security-related systems. Also the demand for blockchain developers will increase. If you want to understand more about blockchain and master the architectural principles and services of today's top Blockchain solutions, you should check out Simplilearn's Blockchain Bootcamp in collaboration with the University of Minnesota.

If you have any questions or doubts, feel free to post them in the comments section below. Our team of experts will review and get back to you at the earliest.

Do you have any questions for us? Leave them in the comments section of this tutorial and our experts will get back to you on it at the earliest.

Happy learning!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Web 3.0 Explained: A Comprehensive Guide | Simplilearn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Web 3.0 could bring a paradigm shift like Web 2.0. Its foundation includes decentralization, openness, and increased utility. Discover the internet's next step.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overview - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following table lists the search operators that work with each Google search service. Click on an operator to jump to its description - or, to read about all of the operators, simply scroll down and read all of this page.

Google changes its search operators from time to time; it's likely that some of these won't work.

The following is an alphabetical list of the search operators. This list includes operators that are not officially supported by Google and not listed in Google's brief online help Refine web searches.

Note: Google may change how undocumented operators work or may eliminate them completely.

Each entry typically includes the syntax, the capabilities, and an example. Some of the search operators won't work as intended if you put a space between the colon (:) and the subsequent query word. If you don't care to check which search operators require no space after the colon, always place the keyword immediately next to the colon. Many search operators can appear anywhere in your query. In our examples, we place the search operator as far to the right as possible. We do this because the Advanced Search form writes queries in this way. Also, such a convention makes it clearer as to which operators are associated with which terms.

allinanchor:

Anchor text is the text on a page that is linked to another web page or a different place on the current page. When you click on anchor text, you will be taken to the page or place on the page to which it is linked. When using allinanchor: in your query, do not include any other search operators. The functionality of allinanchor: is also available through the Advanced Web Search page, under Occurrences.

If you start your query with allintext:, Google restricts results to those containing all the query terms you specify in the text of the page. For example, [ allintext: travel packing list ] will return only pages in which the words "travel," "packing," and "list" appear in the text of the page. This functionality can also be obtained through the Advanced Web Search page, under Occurrences.

allintitle:

The title of a webpage is usually displayed at the top of the browser window and in the first line of Google's search results for a page. The author of a website specifies the title of a page with the HTML TITLE element. There's only one title in a webpage. When using allintitle: in your query, do not include any other search operators. The functionality of allintitle: is also available through the Advanced Web Search page, under Occurrences.

In Image Search, the operator allintitle: will return images in files whose names contain the terms that you specify.

In Google News, the operator allintitle: will return articles whose titles include the terms you specify.

If you start your query with allinurl:, Google restricts results to those containing all the query terms you specify in the URL. For example, [ allinurl: google faq ] will return only documents that contain the words "google" and "faq" in the URL, such as "www. google.com/help/ faq.html". This functionality can also be obtained through the Advanced Web Search page, under Occurrences.

In URLs, words are often run together. They need not be run together when you're using allinurl:.

In Google News, the operator allinurl: will return articles whose titles include the terms you specify.

The Uniform Resource Locator, more commonly known as URL, is the address that specifies the location of a file on the Internet. When using allinurl: in your query, do not include any other search operators. The functionality of allinurl: is also available through the Advanced Web Search page, under Occurrences.

If you include author: in your query, Google will restrict your Google Groups results to include newsgroup articles by the author you specify. The author can be a full or partial name or email address. For example, [ children author:john author:doe ] or [ children author:doe@someaddress.com ] return articles that contain the word "children" written by John Doe or doe@someaddress.com.

Google will search for exactly what you specify. If your query contains [ author:"John Doe" ] (with quotes), Google won't find articles where the author is specified as "Doe, John."

The query will display Google's cached version of a web page, instead of the current version of the page. For example, [ cache:www.eff.org ] will show Google's cached version of the Electronic Frontier Foundation home page.

On the cached version of a page, Google will highlight terms in your query that appear after the cache: search operator. For example, [ cache:www.pandemonia.com/flying/ fly diary ] will show Google's cached version of Flight Diary in which Hamish Reid's documents what's involved in learning how to fly with the terms "fly" and "diary" highlighted.

If you start your query with define:, Google shows definitions from pages on the web for the term that follows. This advanced search operator is useful for finding definitions of words, phrases, and acronyms. For example, [ define: blog ] will show definitions for "Blog" (weB LOG).

This is an undocumented alias for filetype:.

If you include filetype:suffix in your query, Google will restrict the results to pages whose names end in . For example, [ web page evaluation checklist filetype:pdf ] will return Adobe Acrobat pdf files that match the terms "web," "page," "evaluation," and "checklist." You can restrict the results to pages whose names end with pdf and doc by using the OR operator, e.g. [ email security filetype:pdf OR filetype:doc ].

When you don't specify a File Format in the Advanced Search Form or the filetype: operator, Google searches a variety of file formats; see the table in File Type Conversion.

If you include group: in your query, Google will restrict your Google Groups results to newsgroup articles from certain groups or subareas. For example, [ sleep group:misc.kids.moderated ] will return articles in the group misc.kids.moderated that contain the word "sleep" and [ sleep group:misc.kids ] will return articles in the subarea misc.kids that contain the word "sleep."

This is an undocumented alias for info:.

The query will present some information about the corresponding web page. For instance, [ info:gothotel.com ] will show information about the national hotel directory GotHotel.com home page.

This functionality can also be obtained by typing the web page URL directly into a Google search box.

The query intext:term restricts results to documents containing in the text. For instance, [ Hamish Reid intext:pandemonia ] will return documents that mention the word "pandemonia" in the text, and mention the names "Hamish" and "Reid" anywhere in the document (text or not).

Putting intext: in front of every word in your query is equivalent to putting allintext: at the front of your query, e.g., [ intext:handsome intext:poets ] is the same as [ allintext: handsome poets ].

The query intitle:term restricts results to documents containing in the title. For instance, [ flu shot intitle:help ] will return documents that mention the word "help" in their titles, and mention the words "flu" and "shot" anywhere in the document (title or not).

Putting intitle: in front of every word in your query is equivalent to putting allintitle: at the front of your query, e.g., [ intitle:google intitle:search ] is the same as [ allintitle: google search ].

If you include inurl: in your query, Google will restrict the results to documents containing that word in the URL. For instance, [ inurl:print site:www.googleguide.com ] searches for pages on Google Guide in which the URL contains the word "print." It finds pdf files that are in the directory or folder named "print" on the Google Guide website. The query [ inurl:healthy eating ] will return documents that mention the words "healthy" in their URL, and mention the word "eating" anywhere in the document.

Putting inurl: in front of every word in your query is equivalent to putting allinurl: at the front of your query, e.g., [ inurl:healthy inurl:eating ] is the same as [ allinurl: healthy eating ].

In URLs, words are often run together. They need not be run together when you're using inurl:.

The query shows pages that point to that . For example, to find pages that point to Google Guide's home page, enter:

[ link:www.googleguide.com ]

Note: According to Google's documentation, "you cannot combine a link: search with a regular keyword search."

Also note that when you combine link: with another advanced operator, Google may not return all the pages that match. The following queries should return lots of results, as you can see if you remove the -site: term in each of these queries.

Find links to the Google home page not on Google's own site.

[ link:www.google.com -site:google.com ]

Find links to the UK Owners Direct home page not on its own site.

[ link:www.www.ownersdirect.co.uk -site:ownersdirect.co.uk ]

Two-letter US state abbreviations match individual US states, and two-letter Canadian province abbreviations (like NS for Nova Scotia) also work - although some provinces don't have many newspapers online, so you may not get many results. Some other two-letter abbreviations - such as UK for the United Kingdom - are also available.

If you include movie: in your query, Google will find movie-related information. For examples, see Google's Blog.

The query will list web pages that are similar to the web page you specify. For instance, [ related:www.consumerreports.org ] will list web pages that are similar to the Consumer Reports home page.

You can also find similar pages from the "Similar pages" link on Google's main results page, and from the similar selector in the Page-Specific Search area of the Advanced Search page. If you expect to search frequently for similar pages, consider installing a GoogleScout browser button, which scouts for similar pages.

If you include site: in your query, Google will restrict your search results to the site or domain you specify. For example, [ admissions site:www.lse.ac.uk ] will show admissions information from London School of Economics' site and [ peace site:gov ] will find pages about peace within the .gov domain. You can specify a domain with or without a period, e.g., either as .gov or gov.

Note: Do not include a space between the "site:" and the domain.

You can use many of the search operators in conjunction with the basic search operators +, -, OR, and " ". For example, to find information on Windows security from all sites except microsoft.com, enter:

[ windows security -site:microsoft.com ]

You can also restrict your results to a site or domain through the domains selector on the Advanced Search page.

To find a news source ID, enter a query that includes a term and the name of the publication you're seeking. You can also specify the publication name in the "news source" field in the Advanced News Search form. You'll find the news source ID in the query box, following the source: search operator. For example, let's say you enter the publication name Ha'aretz in the News Source box, then you click the Google Search button. The results page appears, and its search box contains [ peace source:ha_aretz__subscription_ ]. This means that the news source ID is ha_aretz__subscription_. This query will only return articles that include the word "peace" from the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

If you enter a query with the word weather and a city or location name, if Google recognizes the location, the forecast will appear at the top of the results page. Otherwise, your results will usually include links to sites with the weather conditions and forecast for that location.

Since weather is not an advanced operator, there is no need to include a colon after the word. For example, [ weather Sunnyvale CA ] will return the weather for Sunnyvale, California and [ weather 94041 ] will return the weather for the city containing the zip code (US postal code) 94041, which is Mountain View, California.

The Google Guide Advanced Operator Quick Reference ( www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators_reference.html) provides a nice summary of the search operators grouped by type. It includes search operators not yet documented by Google, e.g., allinanchor:, , , , , , , , , , and .

Note: Google may change how undocumented operators work or eliminate them completely.

This problem set is designed to give you experiences with search operators and practice with specifying more precisely what you're seeking by using the Advanced Search form. For hints and answers to selected problems, see the Solutions page.

1. Use the site: operator to search for armchairs on IKEA's site, www.ikea.com.

2. Use the Advanced Search form to find the page whose title is "Some Ways to Detect Plagiarism." When the title is entered in lowercase letters, the query box on the results page contains [allintitle: "ways to detect plagiarism" ].

3. Find all pages on google.com but not on answers.google.com nor on directory.google.com whose titles include the words "FAQ" or "help."

4. Use the link: operator to see who links to googleguide.com, your company's website, or your favorite website.

5. Find pages whose titles include surfing that are not about surfing the World Wide Web.

6. Find out where the upcoming international conference on AIDS is being held.

7. How can you search for [ google help ] on Google Guide, www.googleguide.com, and on the UC Berkeley library website, www.lib.berkeley.edu?

tags (keywords): advanced search, operators, queries, search operators

This page was last modified on: Saturday January 29, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following table lists the search operators that work with each Google search service. Click on an operator to jump to its description - or, to read about all of the operators, simply scroll down and read all of this page. Google changes its search operators from time to time; it's likely that some of these won't work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Content curation for personal branding | Scoop.it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Build your professional brand by publishing curated content in minutes. With Scoop.it, use free content curation for personal branding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organize and share education, small business and non-profit resources into virtual binders. Use LiveBinders for hassle-free access from anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dropmark - Organize, collaborate, curate, and share online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The smart way to organize all your links, files, and notes into visual collections. Completely private and ad-free, as always.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best Note Taking App - Organize Your Notes with Evernote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our note taking app helps you capture and prioritize ideas, projects and to-do lists, so nothing falls through the cracks. Start your free trial today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wakelet | The All In One Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wakelet allows you to bookmark, organize, collaborate and present on content all in one platform. Harness your content to build remarkable things.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover recipes, home ideas, style inspiration and other ideas to try.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diigo - Better reading and research with annotation, highlighter, sticky notes, archiving, bookmarking & more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Diigo is a powerful research tool and a knowledge-sharing community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An international community of open source developers, designers, researchers, educators and co-designers who work together to proactively ensure that emerging technology and practices are designed inclusively.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inclusive Teaching Resources and Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
Inclusive Teaching Resources and Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In any discipline or field, a key goal as well as challenge is supporting the learning of all students. Through programs, consultations, and resources, CRLT supports teachers in creating learning environments where students of all identities and backgrounds can flourish. This page features a range of online resources that define inclusive teaching and provide specific strategies for practicing it.
CRLT Resources

Overview of Equity-focused Teaching at the University of Michigan: This page discusses a definition and several key aspects of inclusive teaching.

Principles, Strategies and Resources for Equity-focused Teaching: This document lists specific strategies for fostering five dimensions of inclusive teaching. Instructors can use it to reflect upon practices they already use or might adopt.

The Research Basis for Equity-focused Teaching: This webpage provides an overview of the kinds of evidence that demonstrate inclusive teaching practices can benefit all students' learning.

Setting the Tone for Inclusion: This document suggests concrete practices for intentionally establishing an inclusive learning environment in any discipline.

Teaching to Counteract Stereotype Threat: This document provides an overview of stereotype threat and concrete strategies for counteracting stereotype threat in your teaching.

Our blog regularly features posts on specific inclusive teaching strategies. Topics include:

Our website also features videos featuring U-M Thurnau Professors putting various inclusive teaching strategies into action.

The CRLT Players perform sketches that spark discussion about building more equitable and inclusive classroom and institutional climates.

Resources from U-M Partners

LSA Inclusive Teaching website: Developed by LSA's Undergraduate Education Climate Committee, this site features activities to increase inclusion in classrooms, annotations of relevant research articles, and stories from instructors and students about their classroom experiences.

University of Michigan Student Profiles (pdf): This document provides profiles of U-M's incoming students compared to other highly-selective institutions over time. This data can help instructors understand more about U-M students' background knowledge, experience, and goals; prompt instructors to reflect on their own assumptions about students, and facilitate the cultivation of deliberately inclusive classrooms.

U-M Undergraduates, Responses to Diversity Issues & General Student Experiences (pdf): This document provides data about University of Michigan seniors' perspectives of diversity on campus according to ethnicity.

Practical Tips for New Graduate Student Instructors Who Have Been Educated Internationally: This page offers advice and practical suggestions for internationally-educated GSIs who may be new to teaching at U-M.

Resources from around the web

Key teaching strategies to engage students from a range of academic or social backgrounds

Reflective Strategies for Faculty

Information on course planning

Creating Inclusive Syllabi

For Specific Contexts

CRLT Occasional Papers

Supporting Students Facing Mental Health Challenges

Student Teams in Engineering Classroom and Beyond: Setting up Students for Success

Teaching for Retention in Science, Engineering, and Math Disciplines: A Guide for Faculty

Teaching for Retention in Science, Engineering, and Math Disciplines: A Guide for GSIs: This document provides strategies for increasing retention of students in science, engineering, and mathematics courses. While developed to support the retention of underrepresented groups, these techniques will help all students by allowing the instructor to create a supportive learning environment, communicate clearly, provide regular feedback, and bring real-world relevance into the classroom.

Academic Support for Women in Science and Engineering: Women continue to be underrepresented in a number of science and engineering disciplines. This paper describes factors that have been found to influence the learning and persistence of undergraduate women in science and engineering. Suggestions are offered for how faculty members can improve the academic environment to create a more positive learning climate for all students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inclusive Teaching Resources and Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In any discipline or field, a key goal as well as challenge is supporting the learning of all students. Through programs, consultations, and resources, CRLT supports teachers in creating learning environments where students of all identities and backgrounds can flourish. This page features a range of online resources that define inclusive teaching and provide specific strategies for practicing it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peralta Colleges Distance Education Online Equity Rubric

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This checklist can be used as a guide when selecting technology tools for use in online courses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Course Development Process - Design & share beautiful engaging content with Visme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sign in to Venngage to create free infographics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Know

Throughout this course, you have learned about what program management means for a school-age staff member. You have learned about the roles and responsibilities you assume on a day-to-day basis, the importance of collaborating with others, the importance of establishing and nurturing partnerships with families, and the significance of program management for program quality. Working with school-age children and their families means that you will have impressionable minds watching, listening, and learning from you. It means that you will interact with family members who should be your partners along the way. And it means that you will work with colleagues to strive for high-quality care.

Throughout this process, how will you be able to know whether you are indeed providing high-quality services for children and families in your care? How are you currently determining whether you are doing a good job with school-age children in your care? Answers to these questions are what program evaluation is all about.

Program Evaluation

Program evaluation is necessary in order to know whether or not a program is doing what it says it is doing. Program evaluation is typically completed on an annual basis in order to learn if the program is effectively meeting its goals. The findings of the program evaluation are typically shared with all the program's stakeholders: families, staff, and in some cases, the community.

What does this mean for you?

Evaluation of practice also can be done more frequently, and this involves all the things you do as a school-age staff member with children and families on a daily basis. In your daily work with school-age children, you plan experiences, activities, routines, and transitions. You carefully select materials and purposefully organize your environment so that it promotes optimum growth and development. As you implement your plans, it is important to look back and review what actually happened during a certain day, a certain week, or a period of time. Doing that allows you to take into consideration important observations that tell you if things went well, or not so well and therefore need modified. For example, you may notice which activities school-age children were engaged in, whether children seemed to enjoy working with the materials, or if routines and transitions were smooth or chaotic. This kind of information can help you make decisions about maintaining or changing transitions, materials, or activities and experiences.

Collaborating with Others for Program Evaluation

Leaders in your program including T&CSs and Program Managers, work with you and families to collect relevant data about program outcomes, analyze it, and use the findings to make changes that will improve overall program quality. Program relevant data might include the results of a survey given to family members asking them how well the program is meeting their child's and family's needs, that month's curriculum and activity plans, or evidence from children's portfolios or assessments that they are meeting developmental goals. T&CSs and Program Managers use this information to create a formal report or description of the program for those outside the program who are interested partners (families, advisory board members, etc.).

Formative Evaluation

Formative evaluation is used during the daily operation of the program to examine ongoing processes and to help improve the program. A formative evaluation examines day-to-day successes and challenges. It is often used when programs are just starting or a new policy has just been put into effect. Formative evaluation provides a fast feedback loop to influence program decisions and make necessary changes.
For example, your program T&CS observes two activity areas each afternoon during your transition to playground time and leaves a brief note summarizing her observation in each staff member's mailbox. Both of these activity areas were starting a new routine at playground time, and you and your colleague wanted your T&CS to observe the transition several times to provide feedback about how it was working. At the end of two weeks, your T&CS meets with you and your colleague to discuss her observations over that period and to help you decide if the new routine was working well for the children and staff.
Summative Evaluation

A summative evaluation is typically conducted at the end of a program or after a program has been in existence for some time. The summative evaluation is often shared with those outside the program (advisory board, interagency council, funders) to provide data about the effectiveness of the program.
For example, each July your program manager writes an evaluation report. In it, she summarizes child data, family event data, child and family satisfaction data, and the overall program budget report. This report also highlights progress on the program's goals (e.g., increase the number of family volunteers on school-age field trips). In many ways a summative evaluation report may be of interest to anyone affiliated with the program, but is also of importance to individuals outside the program.
Although a summative evaluation report might only be written and shared once per year, the information that is used to create the report is collected across the year at many different points and includes many different stakeholders (e.g., staff, families, advisory board members).

Evaluations may be conducted by a staff member who is internal to the program (e.g., T&CSs, Program Managers) or the evaluation may be conducted by someone who is externalto the program (e.g., paid consultant, higher-education personnel or state licensing representative with expertise in conducting program evaluations).

What are Indicators of Effective Program Evaluation?

You should familiarize yourself with the following indicators of effective program evaluation as stated by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) (2009), and the National Afterschool Association (NAA, 2011):

Evaluation is used for continuous improvement of your practice.

Your goals for children become the guide for the evaluation.

Evaluations are done by well-trained individuals; for example, your program leaders (T&CSs and Program Managers) or individual experts who are external to your program.

Multiple sources of data are used for the purposes of the evaluation.

In the process of evaluation, children's gains over time are emphasized.

The results of the evaluation are shared with others in the program.

Evaluations promote collaboration between school-age staff members, T&CSs and Program Managers, family members, and members of the community.

Evaluations are based on current theories, research, and policies.

Planning Evaluation for Improvement

Planning involves thinking ahead about what you want to do and how you will do it. When planning for the purpose of evaluating your practices, you need to be thoughtful about the purpose of your evaluation. Being clear about the purpose of your evaluation will help drive the types of information you gather, the questions you ask, the way you time your gathering of information, and the individuals that will be involved in the process. Ultimately, the information you collect will enable you to make decisions about things that you are doing well and things that need to be changed or improved.

For example, you may want to get feedback about how materials are used in your program, how experiences and activities involve and engage each school-age child and youth, how routines and events are carried out, or whether families in your program feel welcomed. You will work with your T&CS or Program Manager, as their support will be invaluable throughout this process. They can help you identify and clarify aspects of your practice that you may want to improve, make a plan to collect the information you need, and then use that information to improve your practices with children and families. Your T&CS or Program Manager can help you select the best ways to gather accurate information relevant to your question, and help you analyze that information to make informed next steps. For example, if you are interested in understanding whether families feel welcomed in your classroom, your T&CS might suggest a small anonymous family survey, with well-crafted questions, and/or they may conduct a detailed observation of how families interact with you while dropping off or picking up their child. You can then review this information together and see what within this area of your practice is working well and identify strategies for improvement.

Striving for Continuous Quality Improvement

You should work with your T&CSs and Program Managers to improve your daily work with school-age children and families in your care. You should also collaborate with these program leaders to assist with any activities that are related to your program's quality improvement. Staff members who are committed to consciously improving services to children, youth, and families should demonstrate an openness to learning new knowledge and skills.

Continuous quality improvement entails:

A commitment to lifelong learning

Program changes that result in better quality care

Self-reflection about daily practices with school-age children and families

Shared leadership

Collaboration with fellow staff members and program administration

With the leadership of your T&CSs and Program Managers, you should strive for high-quality services and continuous improvement. Excellence within yourself contributes to your program's success and growth.

See

Video not available
In this video you will learn about evaluating your practices.

Do

In your daily work with school-age children and youth, you can do the following when it comes to using information to evaluate your own practices and ultimately your program:

Identify the good things and the not-so-good things that happen in your program each day. For example, you may notice that there may not be a wide variety of writing materials (journals, pens, pencils, postcards, unlined paper, index cards, etc.) available for school-age children in your program to be engaged in the writing area.

Be purposeful and intentional when designing experiences and choosing materials for school-age children in your care. Be flexible and willing to make changes in your environment, materials, or routines, based on what you learn or observe about each school-age child.

It's important to know whether families of school-age children in your program feel welcome and supported. You can use your program's or curriculum's goals as a way to know whether you are doing well when it comes to working with families and then make changes if needed.

Use your program's goals as a component of program evaluation. Your program goals should drive your planning of experiences and activities. You should also keep these goals in mind when determining whether school-age children are developing and progressing.

Carran, D. T. (2009). Early Childhood Program Evaluation. In J. M. Taylor, J. R. McGowan, & T. Linder (Eds.), The Program Administrator's Guide to Early Childhood Special Education (pp. 307-335). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Feeney, S. (2010). Ethics Today in Early Care and Education: Review, reflection, and the future. Young Children, 65(2), 72-77.

Feeney, S., Freeman, N. K., & Pizzolongo, P. (2012). Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator: Using the NAEYC code (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Illinois State Board of Education Early Childhood Division. Continuous Quality Improvement Plan (CQIP) for Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-R (ECERS-R). https://www.isbe.net/Documents/cqip-ecers-sample-plan.pdf

Johnson, J. (2010). Keeping Your Smile: Caring for children with joy, love, and intention. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

National Afterschool Association (2011). Core Knowledge and Competencies for Afterschool and Youth Development Professionals. http://www.naaweb.org/images/pdf/NAA_Final_Print.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2011). NAEYC Position Statement: Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment. http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/ethical_conduct

National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Position Statement with Expanded Resources. https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2009). Where We Stand on Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation. https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/StandCurrAss.pdf

Simon, F. (2015). Look Up and Out to Lead: 20/20 vision for effective leadership. Young Children, 70(2), 18-24.

Schweikert, G. (2014). Winning Ways for Early Childhood Professionals: Partnering with families. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout this course, you have learned about what program management means for a school-age staff member. You have learned about the roles and responsibilities you assume on a day-to-day basis, the importance of collaborating with others, the importance of establishing and nurturing partnerships with families, and the significance of program management for program quality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An impact evaluation approach based on identifying and investigating the most successful cases and seeing if their results can justify the cost of the intervention (such as a training course).

# data[].attributes.headline
Lessons from a trial of the Success Case Method

# data[].attributes.subject
Lessons from a trial of the Success Case Method

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lessons from a trial of the Success Case Method - Blog post on Better Evaluation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Success Case Method approach is useful for documenting stories of impact and for understanding the factors that help or hinder impact.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Success Case Method: A Strategic Evaluation Approach to Increasing the Value and Effect of Training

# data[].attributes.subject
The Success Case Method: A Strategic Evaluation Approach to Increasing the Value and Effect of Training

# data[].attributes.headline
Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation - Infographic

# data[].attributes.subject
Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation - Infographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you deliver training for your team or your organization, then you probably know how important it is to measure its effectiveness. After all, you don't want to spend time or money on training that doesn't provide a good return. This is where the Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation Infographic and the Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model can help you objectively analyze the effectiveness and impact of your training, so that you can improve it in the future.

LEVEL 1: SATISFACTION

Describes immediate reaction to program. Tells us how people feel. Information is quick and easy to obtain. Used by most organizations: post-training surveys, feedback forms, smile sheets, focus groups, interviews.

Can be entirely situational and focused on delivery aspects (i.e: the room was too hot!)
Totally perception based. Usually uses Likert scales, which can be skewed or lack refinement (what is the difference between 3.2 and 3.8 satisfaction?)

Useful? Relevant? Practical? Good investment? Valuable? Intent to use?

LEVEL 2: LEARNING

Measures increase in knowledge and skills. Ideally should be done before, during and after instruction/program. Most organizations opt for a questionnaire, but others methods can be used too: facilitation assessments, skills practices, performance demonstrations, simulations, team assessments, skill/confidence building exercises.

Challenge in testing beyond simple rote knowledge. Major debate over embedded vs. final testing & immediate vs. delayed testing. How do you evaluate in a way that is meaningful and fair to the learner?

Competency, Information, Confidence, Skills, Knowledge, Awareness, Capability

LEVEL 3: BEHAVIOUR

The extent that learning is transferred back to the workplace. Measures intermediate outcomes such as use of skills and knowledge, on-the-job performance changes and program implementation.

On the job coaching

On the job testing

Random job assessment

Manager appraisal

Self appraisal

360 degree appraisal

Performance Reviews

Performers often return from trainings motivated, but behaviour is not applied back at the workplace.
WHY?

Training does not meet job requirements

Performers often return from trainings motivated, but behaviour is not applied back at the workplace.

Performers often return from trainings motivated, but behaviour is not applied back at the workplace.

LEVEL 4: RESULTS

Describes impact on the organization. The consequences of applying new knowledge & skills back at work. Typically measured by questionnaires, action planning, performance contracting and performance monitoring.

There needs to be a baseline to compare results. You also need to identify and consider all the other factors that may influence key indicators. Are changes actually the result of the program?

Typical Impact Data: Incidents, Errors/Waste, Outputs, Efficiency, Turnover, Accidents, Productivity, Downtime, Employee Satisfaction, Absenteeism

MODELS OF LEVEL 5
Jack Phillips Return on Investment Model - Benefit to cost ratio: Kaufman's Societal Model - Impact on the Mega Level

Considers benefits of programs based on monetary value.

Debate regarding whether ROI fits in Kirkpatrick's level 4 or should be considered independently.

If the cost is more than the benefit, a program is not worth pursuing.

View also: Read also:

We should look beyond the client & organization and instead evaluate program's impact on society as a whole.

Longterm benefit may outweigh the cost. Investing in education has been proven to raise GDP in the longrun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation Infographic - e-Learning Infographics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation Infographic can help you objectively analyze the effectiveness &impact of your training, so that you can improve it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Kirkpatrick Model

Level 1: Reaction

The degree to which participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs

Level 2: Learning

The degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their participation in the training

Level 3: Behavior

The degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job

Level 4: Results

The degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Kirkpatrick Model, or four levels of training evaluation, consists of Reaction, Learning, Behavior and Results.

# data[].attributes.headline
A National Survey of Faculty Development Evaluation Outcome Measures and Procedures

# data[].attributes.subject
A National Survey of Faculty Development Evaluation Outcome Measures and Procedures

# data[].attributes.headline
The WOW Factor: Creating Faculty Development that Sparks Interest and Envy

# data[].attributes.subject
The WOW Factor: Creating Faculty Development that Sparks Interest and Envy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine our surprise last summer when we reached out to 475 faculty and learned the online courses for nearly half were simply mirrors of their face-to-face instruction. In fact, only 22% were designing their courses differently for online.

With all of the faculty development around online learning being offered, why weren't more faculty designing courses specifically for this type of instruction? As it turns out, faculty weren't engaging with development options at a level you might expect given COVID-19 and the rapid shift to online learning. Something we'd also learned in surveys and interviews with170 provosts and academic leaders a year earlier.

The solution? The WOW Factor.

In our most recent webinar The WOW Factor: Creating Faculty Development That Sparks Interest and Envy, Brett Christie and I share how you can create faculty development that's exciting, engaging, helps faculty see where they need to be and how to move the needle to get there.

1. Learn by Doing Students learn best when they actively take part in their own learning. Give faculty the same experience. Rather than watch someone explain learning design, let them design learning experiences. Even better, an actual course they can use.

2. Model Best Practices This is a huge part of creating the WOW factor and completely engaging faculty. Model learning design best practices and make it known what you're modeling. For example, chunking lessons; no more than 15 minutes of lecture without active learning. Help faculty experience what a student experiences in a well-designed online course; the difference these practices make.

3. Model Engagement & Community A real struggle for faculty is creating engagement online. Bringing their own personality to the course and encouraging students to do the same. Demonstrate how to build community and create social interaction with tools like and . Not only will you build lasting community among the faculty in the workshop, but they'll also learn firsthand how to do this with their students.

4. Provide Tools, Resources & Exemplars. It's so important to instill confidence and give faculty what they need to replicate what they learned. For example, a sample course in Canvas to use as a model, assessment templates, active learning techniques and exemplars to help them with each step of the course development process.

5. Create Community Pride in the Experience Award badges, print certificates and share faculty accomplishments via external (Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and internal communications. Spark interest that makes faculty want to know what's coming up next.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The WOW Factor: Creating Faculty Development That Sparks Interest and Envy - O'Donnell Learn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine our surprise last summer when we reached out to 475 faculty and learned the online courses for nearly half were simply mirrors of their face-to-face instruction. In fact, only 22% were designing their courses differently for online. With all of the faculty development around online learning being offered, why weren't more faculty designing courses specifically for this type of instruction?

# data[].attributes.headline
Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Academic Briefing | Higher Ed Administrative Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Faculty development now more than ever is necessary to an institution's viability. But as my fellow faculty developers know, the task is not an easy one. Before any effective program can be implemented, three major challenges must be overcome.
Challenge of input/output
One might naturally assume that with such a pressing need for pedagogical revision, instructors would be breaking down the doors of faculty development offices, demanding to be retrained. The reality is that oftentimes workshop events are organized-speakers are invited (and often paid), food is catered, rooms are reserved, schedules are put in place, advertising is sent out across multiple media-and just a few people show up.
Challenge of scope
As noted above, academia is currently undergoing some massive changes. Chief among those is technology, particularly online education, which runs the gamut from typical online courses to blended learning to massive open online courses (MOOCs). And then there are mobile and tablet computing, flipped classrooms, and social media, each one of which has been touted in countless articles for its pivotal role in revolutionizing education. But what about the substance of education, such as crafting strong learning objectives, designing meaningful assessment opportunities, and connecting one with the other? There must be a balanced and comprehensive fluency with both technology and pedagogy, and that is no small feat for an educator to learn or for a faculty developer to teach.
Challenge of culture
As is the case at my institution and at most others across the country, professional development is purely elective. And with the intense demands of teaching loads, committee obligations, and research agendas, why would an instructor spend two precious hours of the week learning about "the latest teaching fad that will probably disappear in six months, when what I've been doing for the past 20 years works just fine for me"?
So what's the solution?
After struggling with the three challenges outlined above, I have found that, yes, there are ways to make faculty development work. Below is a list of recommendations that taken together can transform any faculty development program from rusty to robust.

Create learning opportunities that are accessible anytime, anywhere. Even if an instructor is highly motivated to attend a workshop, scheduling conflicts can get in the way. Just as online learning allows a student to take an exam at 1:00 a.m. in his pajamas, online faculty development allows an instructor to do likewise. The reason the traditional faculty development model of "come to my workshop, please" so often fails is the same exact reason the "sage on the stage" model of teaching fails: We're not reaching the audience on their own turf.

Make it collaborative. If they are in a learning space that allows faculty to feel that they are building knowledge and skills alongside their peers, they are less likely to suffer from ego deflation. For virtual workshops, feature chat boxes and shared screens; for asynchronous workshops, create discussion boards; for in-person workshops, allow time for small-group discussion. When faculty are given opportunities to create knowledge alongside their peers, the experience is that much more meaningful and worthwhile.

Make it relevant. Unilaterally deciding what would make for good topics is one way of planning a professional development calendar-indeed, a poor one. Meet with departments across campus and get input directly from faculty about what they would like to see offered; you may be surprised by what the most popular topics are. Especially for faculty developers who do not share the same experiences as faculty themselves, this is key to planning your next season of workshops. Because if faculty see no inherent value in the topics being offered, then all the other roadblocks are moot-they simply won't want to go.

Build relationships. This one can take time and requires that extra effort, but it can have the biggest payoff. Even the best programs will see better turnout if you can develop strong relationships with faculty and administrators (particularly deans and department chairs). The more they see you working with them to achieve development goals, the more involved with and committed they will feel to making it all work. They will understand that faculty developers are partners, not didacts.

Of course, the above suggestions are just that-suggestions. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to faculty development. A number of factors such as campus size, funding, and available technology all can vary widely and impact how programs are executed. But improvements can always be made, and these suggestions are a great place to start. A well-developed faculty is key to an institution's ability to stay relevant and effective, and faculty developers play a vital role in ensuring that.
James Kowalski is the faculty development specialist at Chicago State University. He holds a master of science in education and social policy from Northwestern University and a bachelor of arts from the University of Chicago.
Adapted from "From Rusty to Robust: Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development" in Academic Leader 29.1(2013)1,6 © Magna Publications. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development - Faculty development now more than ever is necessary to an institution's viability. A number of factors such as campus size, funding, and available technology all can vary widely and impact how programs are executed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Professional Development in an Online Context: Opportunities and Challenges from the Voices of College Faculty

# data[].attributes.subject
Professional Development in an Online Context: Opportunities and Challenges from the Voices of College Faculty

# data[].attributes.headline
A Faculty Professional Development Model that Improves Student Learning, Encourages Active-Learning Instructional Practices, and Works for Faculty at Multiple Institutions

# data[].attributes.subject
A Faculty Professional Development Model that Improves Student Learning, Encourages Active-Learning Instructional Practices, and Works for Faculty at Multiple Institutions

# data[].attributes.headline
From Rusty to Robust: Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.subject
From Rusty to Robust: Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Faculty Focus | Higher Ed Teaching & Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Rusty to Robust: Overcoming the Challenges to Effective Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although creating effective faculty development is rife with challenges, these six recommendations can transform any faculty development program.

# data[].attributes.headline
Professors' Slow, Steady Acceptance of Online Learning: A Survey

# data[].attributes.subject
Professors' Slow, Steady Acceptance of Online Learning: A Survey

# data[].attributes.headline
Best Practices Framework for Online Faculty Professional Development: A Delphi Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Best Practices Framework for Online Faculty Professional Development: A Delphi Study

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence-Based Principles for Online Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence-Based Principles for Online Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Takeaways

Responding to calls for additional resources to support postsecondary instructors, many vendors and organizations now offer online educational development resources.

The ultimate goal is to improve instruction and student learning, but to get there, higher education institutions must examine and evaluate these tools, as well as consider the specific needs of diverse campus stakeholders.

After research and discussion, the Professional and Organizational Development Network developed eight principles to guide institutions as they explore and select online educational development resources for their campus communities.

Over the past decade, stakeholders have increasingly demanded that colleges and universities take accountability for postsecondary teaching and learning. In addition, educational developers - that is, the people who provide professional support for postsecondary instructors - have requested the resources they need to scale up their efforts. Both trends have inspired many organizations, including the Association for College and University Educators (ACUE), the Wiley Learning Institute, Epigeum, and Magna Online Courses, to develop instructional modules accordingly; other organizations, including Coursera, edX, Instructure, and Udemy, have developed related massive open online courses (MOOCs) to address the issue. Some of these online tools are produced to stand alone as a primary resource, while others supplement face-to-face educational development initiatives on campuses.

These efforts align with a long-term academic tradition where, each year, instructors rethink and redesign their classes. In many cases, instructors seek new approaches and methodologies to improve their courses and support student learning. Institutional decisions about faculty development shape the resources available to assist faculty in these efforts. For example, does the institution offer teaching center consultants? Workshops? Online resources? Colleagues who can serve as mentors? Faculty learning communities? Given the right support, faculty members can enter each year prepared to effectively teach new or revised classes. To provide this support, however, colleges and universities must become critical consumers of educational development initiatives and evaluate their evidence base.

With this in mind, leaders from the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education - a national organization of professionals involved in faculty, graduate student, and organizational development - have developed eight principles to guide colleges and universities in adopting, implementing, and purchasing online faculty development programming. We developed these principles based on faculty development scholarship and numerous conversations with leaders in the field (see "Contributors") and members. Higher education institutions can use these principles to support their strategic planning and funding decisions around educational development, including large-scale purchasing decisions for online modules, courses, and webinars.

Contributors

The development of these principles is the outcome of insightful contributions from many people, including the following:

Deandra Little, Past-President, Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network

Constance Cook, Clinical Professor Emerita, University of Michigan

Mary Deane Sorcinelli, Prior President, POD Network (2000-2004)

Melissa McDaniels, Assistant Dean, Graduate School, Michigan State University

Virginia Lee, Prior President, POD Network (2007-2010)

Alan Kalish, Director, University Center for the Advancement of Teaching, The Ohio State University

Matt Kaplan, Executive Director, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan

Todd Zakrajsek, Associate Director, Faculty Development Fellowship, University of North Carolina

S. Raj Chaudhury, Chair, POD Network Electronic Communications and Resources Committee

Olena Zhadko, POD Network Electronic Communications and Resources Committee

As the following descriptions show, our principles fall into four general categories: leveraging on-campus resources, using collaborative decision making, attending to institutional context and audiences, and examining the evidence.

Leverage On-Campus Resources

Principle 1: Offer on-campus follow-up support by trained consultants. Research suggests that educational development is most successful when knowledgeable consultants collaborate with instructors to enhance their teaching. Institutions can amplify an online resource's effectiveness by identifying trained, skilled facilitators familiar with the local context who can clarify ideas, discuss effective implementation, and help resolve challenges. The best way to implement this support is to offer multiple-session programs and follow-up support from a skilled facilitator. Sustaining programs in this way is more likely to result in a positive change in teaching behaviors.

Principle 2: Support communal learning. Communities of practice, such as faculty learning communities and teaching circles, have positive effects on teaching development, including course redesign, satisfaction with teaching, and instructors' understanding of how students learn. Further, campus experts - especially those who are "on the ground" and working directly with faculty - should drive the decision about whether an in-person faculty learning community or an online learning community would be most effective within their particular campus contexts.

Use Collaborative Decision Making

Principle 3: Involve stakeholders in purchasing. When making purchasing decisions, campuses should involve key stakeholders - that is, the people who work most directly with instructors - through faculty focus groups or governance structures. These key stakeholders include teaching and learning center directors, department chairs, deans, and associate deans. When these instructors and stakeholders collaborate in decision making about purchases, the resources are more likely to be used; without that collaboration, purchases are more likely to be incompatible with the campus structural and cultural contexts, and thus sit idle.

Attend to Institutional Context and Audience

Principle 4: Consider customization. Campuses should evaluate possibilities for customizing the resource to suit the local context. This might include chunking videos into small modules so campus facilitators can choose relevant pieces to fit their specific needs or offering in-person discussions with a trained facilitator to help instructors apply the material to the campus context.

Principle 5: Consider the audience. The resource should have a clear and discernible audience. Graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, full- and part-time faculty, non-tenure-track, and tenured and tenure-track faculty all face different constraints and have distinct responses to educational development. In this field, one size definitely does not fit all; educational development resources should be tailored specifically to the target audience's needs.

Examine Evidence

Principle 6: Evaluate resource impact. Campuses should examine evidence of the resource's impact on both short- and long-term changes in their faculty's teaching beliefs and practices. If you choose to invest in commercial products, a long-term study is especially important; research suggests that gains are often short-lived unless you provide continuing, on-campus, face-to-face support. ¹ Although vendors should provide evidence for the efficacy of their products or resources, campuses should conduct their own evaluations of effectiveness.

Principle 7: Evaluate suitability for diverse needs. Campuses have a range of educational development needs, and it's important to ensure that the resource can meet most of them. Vendors should provide institutional impact data, such as the resource's effect on existing educational development capacity. Questions to consider include: Do existing teaching and learning centers experience an uptick or downturn in traffic from participating faculty following introduction of the resource? Will the resource add to or detract from existing educational development efforts or centers? Clearly, a resource should build rather than erode capacity to support faculty development.

Principle 8: Consider best practices. Vendors should provide a clear description of the evidence on which they base their resources; doing so lets campuses assess the degree to which resources align with inclusive, evidence-based best practices in teaching and learning, including effective feedback and active and engaged learning.

Conclusions

To best facilitate student learning, campus faculty and administrative leaders should drive decisions about educational development and its future. If they make these decisions in thoughtful and measured ways, online commercial tools will help bring development opportunities to many more instructors and allow for greater resource personalization. However, if campuses fail to consider the principles named here, they will not only miss the opportunity to improve instruction and learning but also might dismantle existing and effective face-to-face programs in favor of online resources that might initially appear cost-effective, but ultimately fail to have lasting impact.

As the Asilomar Convention for Learning Research in Higher Education noted, digital technologies, including educational development resources, "can enhance, do not replace, and should never be allowed to erode the relationships that make learning a humane enterprise." As faculty know with their own students, learning is social, and the relationships of those closest to learners both initiate and sustain good teaching practices.

Note

For all research sources, see the POD Network website.

Mary C. Wright is president-elect of the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
evidence-based principles for online faculty development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence-Based Principles for Online Faculty Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After research and discussion, the Professional and Organizational Development Network for Higher Education developed eight principles to guide instit

# data[].attributes.headline
The ADDIE Model for Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.subject
The ADDIE Model for Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Rohan Jowallah, Linda Futch,

"At the 'hub' of the model is the faculty."

The Jowallah et al. (2016) Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development brings together the key elements needed for faculty development. The model gives consideration to Dittmar and McCracken, 2012; Golden and Brown, 2016; Behar-Horenstein, 2016; Niehaus and Williams, 2016; and Adams, 2014 perspectives on faculty development. The core of the Quality Transformation Model is to give full consideration to the transformation of faculty to teach effectively online within a framework of collaboration, support, reflection, research and evaluation.

Jowallah, Futch, Barrett-Greenly and Bennett (2016)
C1 = Quality transformation process C2 = Core for enabling transformation C3 = Supporting agents for ongoing transformation C4 = Evaluation and feedback for transformation
At the 'hub' of the model is the faculty (C1). For faculty to contribute to the design and development of quality courses, there needs to be a behavior change. This behavior change should ultimately lead to the enhancement of online course quality. C2 represents core elements needed for the transformation of faculty, which include sound knowledge of online pedagogy; active engagement in all activities in the staff training program; knowledge of the affordances of new and emerging technology; an awareness of well designed assessment; active engagement in an online community of practice; and mentorship and support to gain the necessary experience and knowledge needed for effective online teaching. C3 represents elements that are needed to enhance faculty's experiences and support faculty through the transformation process. These factors include:

Collaborative partnerships aimed at online quality improvements;

Motivation of faculty to engage in continued professional development;

Scoping for sustainability of continued professional development;

Understanding of the institutional culture;

Creating a flexible course modality to accommodate faculty;

Addressing the needs of the audience, including making any necessary accommodations needed during the training;

Considering who will take ownership of the development course;

Providing ongoing support for faculty training, and establishing a framework for flexibility to ensure that faculty extend their academic freedom into the design of quality work (Jowallah et al 2016).

The final component of the circle is C4, which gives attention to the need for evaluation and feedback and is necessary for the continuous improvement in the faculty development model. For continuous improvement it will necessary for faculty to:

Understand the requirements of the external accreditation body;

Give their feedback on all development programs;

Engage in collaborative research partnerships to research key topics in relation to online teaching and learning.

The Jowallah et al. (2016) model highlights the need for transformation via reflection within faculty development and allows for some level of flexibility. For example, an institution could begin their online faculty development by focusing on C1 and C2. Once C2 is aligned with C1, this will set the stage for the C3. The final component of the circle is C4, which gives attention to evaluation and feedback for continuous improvement in the faculty development model. It is imperative to have the complete model in mind as you begin the development process. A key point in using this model will be the use of the 'Decision Guide' interactive tool developed by (Futch, Barrett-Greenly and Jowallah). This tool is further highlighted on this site.

References

Adams, S. R., & Mix, E. K. (2014). Taking the Lead in Faculty Development: Teacher Educators Changing the Culture of University Faculty Development through Collaboration. AILACTE Journal, 11(1), 37-56.

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Garvan, C. W., Catalanotto, F. A., Yu, S., & Xiaoying, F. (2016). Assessing Faculty Development Needs among Florida's Allied Dental Faculty. Journal Of Dental Hygiene, 90(1), 52-59 8p.

Dittmar, E., & McCracken, H. (2012). Promoting Continuous Quality Improvement in Online Teaching: The META Model. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 163-175.

Futch L., Barrett-Greenly, T., and Jowallah, R. 2016 (November 16-18 th).
Interactive Faculty Development Decision Guide (IFDDG): A Tool to Support the Design and
Implementation of an Effective Training Program for Online Instructor s. Florida Distance

Learning Association Conference. Florida Annual Online. Florida, Altamonte Springs

Golden, J. & Brown, V. (Accepted for Publication 2016). A holistic professional development model: A case study to support faculty transition to online teaching. In D. Polly & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Teacher Education and Professional Development. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.

Jowallah, R., Futch L., Barrett-Greenly, T., and Bennett, L. 2016 (November 16-18 th). Quality
Transformation Model for Faculty Development: a new theoretical and piratical model for
developing online faculty. Annual Online Learning Consortium International Conference.

Florida, Orlando

Niehaus, E., & Williams, L. (2016). Faculty Transformation in Curriculum Transformation: The Role of Faculty Development in Campus Internationalization. Innovative Higher Education, 41(1), 59-74.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development (QTMFD) - TOPkit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development brings together the key elements needed for faculty development and gives full consideration to the transformation of faculty to teach effectively online within a framework of collaboration, support, reflection, research, and evaluation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Linda Futch, Rohan Jowallah,

"The FDDG is a helpful tool to guide individuals in an educational environment and possibly beyond. Based on my response, the tips and the resources provided were very helpful and guided me on how to get on track." -Ali Nasser, Community of Practice Discussion

The Faculty Development Decision Guide (FDDG) is a comprehensive interactive tool designed to allow institutions to evaluate their online faculty development needs, create a plan of action for their own online faculty development program, and have access to resources that will support staff development. To maximize the use of this tool, please allow at least 20 minutes to respond to all prompts or questions. Once you have finished completing the evaluation, you will be given the option to print a personalized assessment with resources.

The Faculty Development Decision Guide (FDDG) is based on the Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development (QTMFD) developed by Jowallah, Futch, Barrett-Greenly, and Bennett (2016).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Faculty Development Decision Guide - TOPkit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Faculty Development Decision Guide is a comprehensive interactive tool to evaluate online faculty development needs and create a plan of action. It also includes resources to support staff development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Conferences, Professional Development For Teachers, Teacher Conferences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organizers of education conferences and professional development for teachers through continuing education teacher workshops. Specializing in neuroeducation and brain based teaching.

# data[].attributes.headline
Addressing the Challenges of Program and Course Design in Higher Education with Design Technologies

# data[].attributes.subject
Addressing the Challenges of Program and Course Design in Higher Education with Design Technologies

# data[].attributes.headline
The Top Challenges for E-Learning Instructional Design in 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
The Top Challenges for E-Learning Instructional Design in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Top Challenges for E-Learning Instructional Design in 2020 · Eduflow blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There’s never been a busier or more exciting time to be an instructional designer. We talked to some top IDs to get a picture of the challenges ahead in 2020.

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of Instructional Designers in Online Higher Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of Instructional Designers in Online Higher Education

# data[].attributes.headline
Meet the Instructional Design ‘First Responders’ Helping Faculty Teach in an Emergency 

# data[].attributes.subject
Meet the Instructional Design ‘First Responders’ Helping Faculty Teach in an Emergency 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As coronavirus pushed campuses across the country to close, and college after college issued orders to resuscitate courses online, it became clear that faculty needed help, stat.

Diann Maurer answered the call. An instructional designer in Texas who weathered Hurricane Harvey, she knew firsthand what it's like to try to keep education alive during a crisis. So she whipped up a few online forms, messaged colleagues on Twitter and together they created the Instructional Design Emergency Response Network.

It's a simple system that matches instructors who need help teaching online with instructional designers willing to assist. So far, the network has 300 volunteers and counting.

In this interview with EdSurge, Maurer explains her goals for the project and emphasizes the importance of comptent online course design. But she also advises faculty teaching remotely for the first time not to worry about perfection.

The conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
EdSurge: How and why did you start this effort?
Maurer: When Hurricane Harvey passed through and hit hard, a colleague mentioned it would be so great if we had a network of instructional design "first responders" to deal with these kinds of crises that can really disrupt student learning. I think that it maybe was too localized of a disaster to really pick up a lot of interest. She kind of left it on the table.

About eight days ago, I messaged her and said, "Would you mind if I took a crack at it now?" She gave me her blessing and said go run like a young boy in a field.

I'm doing this on my own time with my own resources. I got the technologies that were available to me for free; created a couple of Google forms, one to offer help and one to get help; created a Twitter account to promote it; put them up on a Google site; and went from there.
What has the response been like?
Within the first 48 hours, I had a hundred people volunteer, and almost all of them said they would do it on their own time and didn't need to be paid for it-instructional designers, technologists and people who have many years of online teaching. PhD students in instructional technology. I was expecting people in K-12 and higher ed, but I also got a lot of people from corporate instructional design.

It's reaching people that I didn't expect it to reach. A couple of days ago I had to go in and edit my form so I could allow people who are in time zones outside of the U.S.

It's been just over a week. I have 300 people who are available to help. Some are available just a couple of hours a week. Some are available 20 hours or more; some are retired online learning professionals who are coming on and volunteering to help.

It's been a really good experience, just because it warms my tiny, concrete heart to see people willing to donate their time to people who teach at other institutions just to get each other through this.
What kinds of requests for help have you received?
They have not picked up as quickly as I expected or as quickly as the offers, and I think I have an outreach problem. I think the people who really need the help are maybe not on Twitter. I'm asking people in the network to do outreach to centers for teaching and learning.

I was contacted by the director for the Caltech Center for Teaching, Learning, and Outreach. They have a scope of work drafted, and they need a few more instructional designers to supplement what they were already doing.

I was also reached out to by the vice president for academic affairs for Miami Dade College, which is enormous. I heard back from her today that she thinks they're probably fine but she'll let me know. She can send faculty directly to us.

We have more people than we have requests, which I think is good. At this point, I'd like to get the word out a little bit more that we're available to the people who really need to help.

Most of the requests I get, I get after midnight.
As faculty scramble to move their in-person classes online, why do we need instructional design expertise?
The relationship that an instructor builds with an instructional designer is really, really important. The way I would typically describe it to an instructor is to say, "You're the subject matter expert in biology, I'm the subject matter expert in quality course design," and to recognize those are both skills that are equally important.

This is a partnership we develop. They can have their imagination of what they'd really like to do in a course, and then I help them figure out how to do that. I can help them figure out how to make a course speak for them when they are not in the room, how to have their personality present in their course when they're not in the room.

Instructional designers will have specialized knowledge in digital accessibility, copyright and technology skills. We have a bank of third-party tools that will accomplish different things and solve different problems.

If you've written something in your native language and need to translate it to another language that you don't know, you can use a web-based machine translation tool. But how good is that translation going to be compared to a translation performed with the help of a human who speaks that second language fluently? That's the difference between having to "pivot to online" on your own, versus working with an online learning professional, such as instructional designers and technologists.

Online teaching is a skill and should be done thoughtfully. That is something that we don't have the benefit of right now. The more help you can get from people who have a lot of experience doing it already, the stronger your teaching is going to be and the more successful your students are going to be.
So there's a sense of professional responsibility at work here. What else is motivating you?
The reason I am trying to reach out to faculty in my spare time [to support] other instructors who have never taught online is because I know the people who ultimately are going to suffer are the students. I wonder how much students are going to be able to learn and retain this semester. I worry for them so much.

For schools that have canceled class and early grades, where they're not doing remote instruction, are those students going to be left back? Are we going to have a whole year of students who don't graduate because they didn't finish their classes? What is going to happen to these kids? These are the things I think about at two in the morning.
Some educators have been aghast at the idea of pushing faculty to teach online without training, while others have embraced it as an opportunity to experiment, or believe it's better than nothing. What do you think?
I think it depends on the instructor. I spoke to an instructor the other day who herself was high-risk, so she had a compromised respiratory system. She's older, probably in her 70s. She's taught face-to-face and she said, "My students take my class face-to-face for a reason, and I teach face-to-face for a reason." She has minimal technology skills. Part of doing this is to give her a plan she has ownership of, that she can follow by herself with the skills she already has.

I very much follow the idea of meeting someone where they are, developing a strong relationship with them, and continuing under a model of continuous improvement. The place she's going to start with her course next week may not look like week 16 of the course. She's going to learn and grow as she goes along.

We're just operating a MASH unit right now. We're trying to keep people together, stop the bleeding, get you to a place where you are at least functional. Not to relate it to a war zone, but some of the faculty I'm talking to are feeling very overwhelmed by the whole thing.

This really isn't "online learning," this is "remote teaching." I think that is more accurate as a term, but we need to stop arguing about language and just help each other.
What are the big pieces of advice you'd offer an instructor trying this for the first time, right now?
Call your instructional designer and use the resources being offered by your university.

Me and all the instructional designers I know, we are nerds who love our jobs and we just love it when someone wants to come play with us. When I meet someone for the first time, they're self-conscious of their technology skills or their online teaching strategies. Now is not the time to feel self-conscious about that. I'm never going to judge someone because they don't have the same skills I do.

Don't be too hard on yourself and don't be too hard on your students. Technology is going to fail. It's important to model to students resiliency and be able to say, "Well I didn't do that right, that didn't work but that's OK, we will get through it."

Try to roll with it and don't be too hard on yourself. Don't worry about whether you're doing something exactly right. The thing you should be looking for is your best strategy and your best path forward from where you are right now, as opposed to whatever some famous teacher is doing. You don't have to be them right now.
Final thoughts?
I want to emphasize that I sign my emails with "network administrator" instead of my name because this really isn't about me. It's about the 300 people who are so invested in doing this work that they've come to create this network together. They deserve so much recognition for the sacrifice they're making. A lot of instructional designers already feel underpaid, underutilized and underappreciated.

I never expected to be in a situation where there's so much to do, where we are working overtime and working weekends, and volunteering time on top of that to [help] other institutions and other faculty. It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy on the inside, that when some people go to the grocery store and buy all the toilet paper, there's also this swell of generosity, too. It's important to see that. I want to thank all those people for submitting a form, it really means a lot to me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Instructional Design 'First Responders' Helping Faculty Teach in an Emergency - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As coronavirus pushed campuses across the country to close, and college after college issued orders to resuscitate courses online, it became clear ...

# data[].attributes.headline
How Instructional Designers Approach Conflict with Faculty

# data[].attributes.subject
How Instructional Designers Approach Conflict with Faculty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

As internal and external demands for quality online offerings continue to rise in higher education, universities and colleges are prompted to incentivize faculty to transform their on-campus teachings to the online environment (Allen & Seaman, 2017). For many higher education institutions, the COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated the need to increase their online course offerings (Educause, 2020). Shifting from synchronous to asynchronous teaching is documented as quite challenging for faculty to achieve independently (Kampov-Polevoi, 2010; Kebritch, et al., 2017). In response, universities often partner faculty with instructional designers, who use their combined pedagogical and technological knowledge to help guide faculty through the transition to online teaching (Chao, et al., 2010; Rubley, 2016; Bawa &Watson, 2017; Richardson, et al., 2018).

Consequently, the relationships between instructional designers and faculty have garnered the interest of practitioners and researchers alike with a notable increase of studies over the past seven years (Chen & Carliner, 2020). This growing body of literature has provided many useful strategies about how instructional designers and faculty develop effective and productive relationships to collaborate (Pan, et al., 2003; Campbell, et al., 2007; Pan & Thompson, 2009; Rubley, 2016; Bawa &Watson, 2017; Richardson, et al., 2018). Surfacing from these studies are indications of tension and, on some occasions, episodes of conflict between instructional designers and faculty (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Castro-Figueroa, 2009; Halupa, 2019; Richardson, et al., 2018; Rubley, 2016). For instance, in a survey of instructional designers and faculty, Rubley (2016) found tensions between the instructional designers and faculty to be centered on differences over "who is the pedagogical expert", "perceptions of the value of technology" and each other's role within the relationship (p. 24-25). While these differences begin to uncover potential causes of conflict, what remains largely unexamined is how instructional designers approach conflict when it arises with faculty. This study seeks to fill this gap.

Collaboration & Conflict

Professional collaborations have the potential to produce multiple benefits within the workplace (Lawson, 2004) and, as a result, are becoming increasingly commonplace across most professions (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Collaborating with others has been a routine function of the instructional design profession from the beginning (Keppell, 2001; Reiser, 2001). In their review of the literature on the working relationship between instructional designers and faculty, Chen & Carliner (2020) found these relationships commonly characterized as a collaboration despite a lack of clarity on the specific elements of what makes the relationship collaborative. One exception is that collaborations are commonly conceptualized to only exist when there is shared interdependence between two stakeholders (D'Amour, et al., 2005; Lawson, 2004; Levin, 2012). In other words, two or more stakeholders will find themselves in a collaboration when each party is unable to achieve an identified goal or task independently. The interdependent relationship between instructional designers and faculty has been linked to a shared goal of creating high quality learning for students with the end product ranging from the digitization of a particular component of a course to an entire course being moved online (Pan, et al., 2003; Morrison, et al., 2004; Richardson, et al., 2018).

While interdependence is a critical component of collaborations, it is also found to be a common element associated with conflict (Donohue, 1992; Hocker & Wilmot, 2017; Northouse & Northouse, 1998; Wall & Callister, 1995). Professionals may desire conflict-free collaborations, but conflict management scholars argue this is not a realistic expectation since conflict is considered a ubiquitous human experience (Donohue, 1992; Hocker & Wilmot, 2017; Rahim, 2010; Tjosvold, 2008). Furthermore, Tjosvold (2008) states "conflict can be highly constructive, indeed, essential to teamwork and organizational effectiveness" (p. 19). De Dreu & Weingart (2003) propose, without some conflict, collaborators "might not realize that inefficiencies exist" in their efforts (p. 741). Experiencing opposition from subject-matter experts (SMEs), including faculty, is not a new phenomenon for instructional designers (Wedman, 1989; Keppell, 2001). In fact, Wedman (1989) cites faculty's "resistance" to the instructional design process even prior to the advent of educational technology in higher education. Although each university system can differ organizationally, faculty and instructional designers' shared goal of content transformation is what van de Vliert & De Dreu (1994) identify as "positive goal interdependence". van de Vliert & De Dreu (1994) find these types of conflicts are more likely to be able to be managed constructively. Donohue (1992) adds that constructive conflict tends to "bolster interdependence" between parties (p. 8). Thus, if approached productively, conflict between instructional designers and faculty has the potential to be constructive and yield stronger interdependence between the two parties.

Instructional design skills: Signposts for approaching conflict with faculty

The necessity to develop a versatile skill set is already familiar to instructional designers and these professional skills are consistently reviewed and updated through both research and practice (e.g., IBSTPI, 2012; Sugar, 2014; Wakefield, 2012). Examining the existing literature revealsa wide-range of skills that provide a starting point for instructional designers and how they approach conflict. Based on the review, three specific instructional design skills that are interconnected with conflict management strategies emerged and these are explored next (Donohue, 1992; Rahim, 2010; Wall & Callister, 1995).

Interpersonal Skills

Instructional designers continuously report that possessing strong interpersonal communication skills are amongst the most essential skills for effective work with faculty (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Campbell, et al., 2007; IBSTPI, 2012; Keppell, 2001; Kenny et al., 2005; Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015; van Leusen, et al., 2016; Wakefield et al., 2012). Interpersonal communication skills encompass a wide range of skills and a number of these skills appear in the literature. In a study of the interpersonal communication skills utilized by experienced instructional designers with faculty, van Leusen et al (2016) identify eight distinct types of skills: "active listening, paraphrasing, summarizing, open questioning, closed questioning, addressing faculty's questions, and informal conversation" with "open questioning" and "informal conversation" being the most frequently observed (p. 255). In a separate study, the overwhelming majority of instructional designers interviewed by Ritzhaupt & Kumar (2015) identified interpersonal communication skills as "far more important than technical skills, because technologies can be learned on the job" (p. 59). The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI, 2012), an organization that guides instructional design professional standards, identify several skills associated with interpersonal communication: write and edit messages that are clear, concise, and grammatically correct; deliver presentations that effectively engage audiences and communicate clear messages; use active learning skills, solicit, accept and provide constructive feedback; present written and oral messages that take into account the type of information being delivered and the diverse backgrounds roles, and varied responsibilities of the audience; and use effective questioning techniques (p. 3-7).

Adaptability

Instructional designers' adaptability is also recognized as an important skill and is exemplified through the use of various design models, keeping current with new instructional technologies and modifying pedagogical strategies for different learning situations (Bawa & Watson, 2017; IBSTPI, 2012; Keppell, 2001; Morrison & Anglin, 2009; Rubley, 2016). Researchers also find adaptability to be an essential skill for instructional designers to utilize as they communicate and build relationships with others (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Fortney, 2013; Halupa, 2019; Richardson, et al., 2018; Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015). In terms of communicating, instructional designers need to be able to tailor their messages to diverse audiences (Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015). Richardson et al. (2018) find instructional designers identify "adaptability through open mindedness and flexibility" as one crucial component to establishing productive relationships with faculty (p.17). When collaborating with faculty, Halupa (2019) describes the importance that instructional designers can adapt:

Instructional designers must adjust and adapt to the various levels of expertise and experience. If a designer treats a novice faculty member as an experienced one, there are likely to be issues. Consequently, if a designer treats an experienced faculty member as if he/she does not know anything about online course development, this can cause resentment (p. 63).

Bawa & Watson (2017) encapsulates the skill of adaptability for instructional designers in their findings which used the acronym and metaphor, "Chameleon" (i.e., Communication, Humility, Adaptability, Mentorship, Engagement, Looping, Empathy, Oscillating, Networking).

Problem Solving

In an instructional design professional setting, problem solving tends to refer to instructional designers' ability to help solve instructional problems within the instructional design process (Ertmer et al., 2008; Jonassen, 2004; Morrison, et al., 2004) and is commonly cited as a key competency for instructional designers (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013; Kenny et al., 2005; Wakefield et al., 2012). However, in some instances, problem-solving seems to describe instructional designers' conflict resolution. For example, Wakefield et al., (2012) describe the instructional designers' role as "planner and problem solver" to mean resolving both "client concerns quickly" and "strategic conflicts in the design and development of curriculum suggesting win-win conflict resolutions" (p. 3130). More direct references to conflict resolution appear in the literature. In Campbell et al (2007) study, instructional designers specify "explicit conflict resolution" as a skill set needed when working with faculty in higher education (p. 26). The IBSTPI (2012) also finds "effective negotiation and conflict resolution" as advanced level communication skills instructional designers need to possess. Northouse and Northouse (1998) state, "if conflict is managed in effective and productive ways, the result is a reduction of stress, an increase in creative problem solving. . ." (p. 225).

Collectively, possessing strong interpersonal communication, adaptability and problem-solving provides instructional designers a useful foundational base for use in approaching conflict. As a result, instructional designers may find themselves in a better starting position to approach conflict than professionals in other settings. Learning more about how instructional designers approach conflict with faculty is important for two of reasons. First, the working relationship between instructional designers and faculty is crucial to the overall quality and success of the courses they collaboratively design and develop, which ultimately impacts student learning (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Chao et al., 2010; Halupa, 2019). Therefore, increasing our understanding of how instructional designers approach conflict with faculty can further inform us of the impact conflict is having on this relationship. Second, workplace conflict is highly contextual and multifaceted even within a small work environment (Donohue, 1992; Lederach, 2003; Tjosvold, 2006). Gaining insight into how instructional designers approach conflict with faculty in various higher education settings will open new scholarly conversation and provide a platform for potential professional growth for instructional designers. Thus, the central research question of this study is: How do instructional designers approach conflict with faculty?

Methods

Research Design

To address the research question, this study utilized a multiple-case study design to identify strategies instructional designers find effective in managing conflict with faculty within collaborations (Yin, 2014). Using multiple cases provided researchers opportunity to examine how each individual managed conflict with faculty within their specific context and, simultaneously, garner a variety of instructional designers' perspectives (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Multiple-case analysis also allowed us to gain a more comprehensive and reliable set of common conflict management strategies used by instructional designers across cases (Yin, 2014). This can be helpful in developing a more thorough understanding of how instructional designers manage conflict with faculty.

Participants & Context

Participants for this study were recruited through the Association for Education Communities and Technologies (AECT) research email initiative and the researcher's university professional network of instructional designers during the 2020 spring semester. A recruitment email was sent asking potential participants to complete a short, pre-interview survey to provide some basic background information and their experiences of conflict with faculty during collaborations. Using a purposeful sampling method (Patton, 2015), instructional designers were recruited for the study only if they reported routine collaboration with faculty in higher education and had experienced some type of conflict during their interactions with faculty. A total of 46 instructional designers responded to the survey and, of those, 20 instructional designers met the aforementioned criteria and were invited to participate in the study. In the end, 14 instructional designers agreed to participate in the study and all were given a ten dollar Amazon gift card after completion of the interview. Participants' identities were anonymized with pseudonyms and gender, ethnicity, education, and professional experience are provided in Table 1. Additionally, on the pre-interview survey we asked each participant their confidence level in managing conflict with faculty. All participants communicated they possessed a moderate to high level of confidence in managing conflict with faculty.

Table 1

Participants' Information

Participant

Gender/Ethnicity

Education

Experience

Confidence Level in Managing Conflict

Data Collection

For this study, three types of data were collected: (1) pre-interview surveys; (2) semi-structured interviews; and (3) researchers' reflective memos from both the interviews and interview transcripts. Prior to the data collection process, the researcher requested two instructional designers, who have professional experience working with faculty in higher education, pilot the pre-interview survey and semi-structured interview questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). After receiving the instructional designers' feedback, edits were made to improve the clarity of the questions. Pre-interview surveys allowed for both purposive sampling at the participant level and to establish rapport with participants before the interview (Creswell, 2015). Using the online surveying tool Qualtrics, pre-interview surveys were sent to collect demographic data, professional experience, educational background, and instructional designers' conflict experiences with faculty including their confidence levels in managing conflict with faculty. When selecting participants, maximum variation strategy was utilized to ensure we captured a diverse set of perspectives of instructional designers with different backgrounds and experiences with conflict (Creswell, 2015). For example, some participants shared more persistent conflict experiences with faculty than others.

Inan effort to provide space for participants to share their experiences and conflict management strategies, individual interviews were conducted using semi-structured, open ended questions (Galletta, 2013). To further establish rapport with each instructional designer, the interviewer attempted to develop familiarity and rapport with each participant by asking questions about their day-to-day duties as an instructional designer including typical projects they collaborate on with faculty (see Appendix A). Each interview was recorded, transcribed and uploaded to NVivo for analysis. To help conceptualize the data, the interviewer composed analytical reflective memos after each interview was recorded and during the analysis of the interview transcripts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Following Shenton's (2004) recommendation, recurrent collaborative "debriefing sessions" were held between members of the research team to review data collection, discuss reflective memos and preliminary analysis of each case (p. 67).

Data Analysis

As each individual case was documented, a detailed descriptive report was developed for each case including the themes within the case and developing patterns across cases (Creswell, 2015). Each report consisted of participants' responses to the pre-interview surveys, interview transcripts, the researchers' reflective memos from the interview, and analytical feedback through debriefing sessions with research team. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify the themes across cases related to instructional designers' use of conflict approaches with faculty (Yin, 2014). Initially, one researcher open-coded interview transcripts utilizing descriptive coding techniques (Saldaña, 2015). Upon generating the first set of descriptive codes, the codes were reviewed and analyzed by members of the research team and agreement was reached regarding the direction of future data analysis. Focused coding was used and around 15 categories emerged across the data (Saldaña, 2015). After five cycles of coding and condensing of codes (Creswell, 2015), we identified a set of conflict prevention and management strategies (e.g., actively listening, fostering a personal relationship with faculty, etc.) spanning across three phases of the collaboration between instructional designers and faculty (see Appendix B). In order to ensure trustworthiness of the data, member checking was used with all participants.

Results

From the interview data, the analysis uncovered conflict prevention and management strategies coinciding with three phases of a typical faculty collaboration timeline experienced by instructional designers (1) at the outset of the collaboration; (2) during the collaboration; and (3) post collaboration (see Figure 1). Surfacing from the interview data and case reports were conflict preventative strategies that the instructional designers utilized at the outset of collaborations to avoid conflict and cultivate a sense of togetherness with faculty. The researchers refer to this strategic phase as cultivating the collaboration. Another set of strategies emerged that instructional designers used to strengthen the collaboration with faculty during their collaborations. While instructional designers identified distinct strategies for cultivating and strengthening collaborations with faculty, findings suggest the strategies the instructional design participants used were interconnected across the building of relationships with faculty, communications with faculty and various elements of the design processes. Finally, instructional designers also shared reflective strategies focused on professional and personal growth that help them improve conflict prevention and management skills leading into future collaborations with faculty.

Figure 1

Collaboration Timeline

Picture showing phases instructional designers experience while collaborating with faculty

Cultivating the Collaboration

Relationship Building

In recounting collaborative experiences with faculty, instructional designers revealed they commonly enter working relationships with faculty having neither personally met nor worked with the faculty members before. While half of participants (n=7) expressed their preference to begin each collaboration with an in-person meeting with faculty, a subset of these instructional designers viewed fostering a personal relationship with each faculty member as a strategy they use to prevent conflict from occurring. Pamela described the goal of establishing a relationship with faculty is accomplished by getting them to see her "as a person rather than an instructional designer". Christie expanded upon this idea by describing how she attempts to meet faculty in an informal setting (e.g., "for a coffee"), which allows them to get to know each other and helps her establish a more "equitable exchange in the relationship". She added, if any conflict were to arise between her and the faculty, it is less likely that it will turn into "destructive conflict". Therefore, prior to entering into the working relationship with faculty, these instructional designers find that developing a personal bond with faculty in a non-work environment is an effective conflict prevention strategy.

Communication

Participants identified two proactive approaches centered on building strong communication foundations with faculty used to both prevent and create space to resolve conflict within collaborations. Six of the instructional designers indicated they approach each new faculty interaction with a sense of empathy and are prepared to actively listen to the faculty member. For example, Christie pointed out by agreeing to transition their class(es) online, faculty are taking on many risks such as "criticism from their colleagues" and potential "bad student evaluations". Consequently, Christie explained she always enters into faculty collaborations with an empathetic attitude towards faculty members. Donna disclosed she starts each faculty collaboration with a mindset that any "faculty resistance" is typically coming from a positive place as faculty only want what is "best for their students". Therefore, showing empathy and respect for "the naysayers", as Donna described, is a way for instructional designers to avert what they may perceive as initial conflict coming from faculty. Analogous with their expressions of empathy toward faculty were instructional designers use of active listening techniques especially during their first meeting with faculty. Both Kenny and Michael found listening to faculty helpful in gaining an understanding of any thoughts or concerns the faculty member may have heading into the collaboration. For Issac, being an effective listener also meant "to value their [the faculty] experiences and preconceptions". Kenny encouraged "repeating what they're saying so that they understand that you are comprehending" because, in his experiences, it illustrates to faculty they are being heard and understood.

Exhibiting interest and curiosity towards the faculty's teaching experiences and course content was another strategy instructional designers identified to build stronger connections with faculty. For example, Pamela described how she "familiarizes" herself with each faculty member's course content and writes down a few questions to ask during the first meeting. Then, in the initial meeting with faculty, Pamela expressed she is able to better demonstrate an authentic interest in the faculty member's subject matter and teaching methods. In addition, Christie explained how she attempts to get the faculty member discussing "what goes really well for them when they're teaching" the particular subject or course. From her experiences, she is able to tease out what excites faculty about teaching and can create a shared positive connection as they begin the collaboration.

The final strategy focused on communication shared by instructional designers was how they begin each project by developing a customized communication plan with each faculty member. Participants recommended learning the faculty member's preferred means of communication (e.g., in-person, email, text message, etc.) and creating an agreed upon plan of communication. Ellisa and Christie suggested obtaining the agreed-upon communication plan in writing, which they find reduces the chance of miscommunication with the faculty member. Frank added he builds flexibility into any communication plan with faculty to allow space for adjustment if the original plan does not work. Hanna summarized this process well:

Be in close contact with your faculty members and use your best judgment to figure out the best way that you can communicate with them. Sometimes instructors will prefer phone calls over emails. Sometimes they will only do email. Work with them to develop the best kind of communication style.

Design Process

Emerging from the interview data were conflict preventative strategies instructional designers use in the beginning phase of the design process. One of the more widely used strategies identified by instructional designers (n=8) was their attempt to create collaborative goals and incentives with the faculty. Ellisa described one of her approaches to creating collaborative goals with faculty is to "always have an initial meeting, face-to-face, where we communicate about the goal, what my goal is, what their goal is and make sure we're on the same page in terms of our vision[. . .]" Embedded within this strategy were ways in which instructional designers try to incentivize collaborations. For instance, Kenny specified trying to "create a win-win situation" (e.g., small project milestone) for both him and faculty early on in the design process. Both Christie and Issac attempt to incentivize the design project by working with faculty on identifying a research study to collaboratively complete during the project. Christie explained "I approach design from a strength-based, you know, point of view. I am always committed to helping them get research out of the project [. . .] my mantra is make everything work twice". Thus, these instructional designers find this strategy to build positive momentum and motivation for both them and the faculty accentuates their collaboration.

Additionally, when entering new collaborations instructional designers recognized that proposing too many course design changes can overwhelm faculty and cause discord. As a result, an approach to seek incremental change surfaced from instructional designers interviewed. Allison expressed this notion concisely by stating "if you try to make it a perfect course, you won't get there the first time because they'll hate you". Allison suggested "do things only incrementally[. . .] introduce one active learning strategy each class or each topic". Issac echoed this sentiment and added that "change will be slow, so sort of bite-sized improvements" over different iterations of the course. These instructional designers seemed to take a more long-term approach to the course design process and sensed by taking this approach faculty were more willing to come back to them for help in preparing for future iterations of the same course.

Strengthening the Collaboration

Relationship Strengthening

When the collaboration with faculty is underway, instructional designers identified the need to re-emphasize the interdependent relationship they share with faculty as a method to maintain balance in the relationship. For example, Lily indicated she routinely must "loop back" to the shared interdependence between her and faculty during the collaboration. Lily conferred that it is helpful to remind faculty they are not alone, but to maintain she "can't do it all for them". Michael and Frank conveyed that they often must remind faculty, as instructional designers, they do not possess the faculty member's subject matter expertise and the member must lead the way in connecting content to student learning experiences. Accordingly, these revelations seem to highlight some of the challenges instructional designers face when transitioning from the personal relationship to the collaborative relationship with faculty.

Communication

Instructional designers offered various communication strategies to manage and mitigate conflict with faculty during collaborations. Participants identified how they attempt to communicate clearly and concisely with faculty to decrease the probability of conflict. For instance, Pamela described she always tries to make "communication clear and not redundant" and tries to not "overwhelm the faculty [member] with so many details". Pamela finds this allows her to have more meaningful communication with faculty and reduces the chance of miscommunication. Other instructional designers mentioned being clear and concise in their communications with faculty helped keep the collaborative projects on track. Ellisa delineated "I will send a quick email with a reminder of things that I need with an estimated due date[. . .]that tends to keep instructors back on track but also more generally, just developing rapport."

Nevertheless, when experiencing a communication breakdown with faculty, half of the participants (n=7) shared experiences of having to routinely adapt the agreed upon communication plan with faculty. Considering their experiences, Frank and Lily find taking the lead on compromising and adapting to the faculty member's communication preferences and schedule helped them alleviate pressure on faculty, thus, reducing the likelihood that conflict would arise.

Another communication strategy cited by instructional designers was more directly related to the actions taken if they sensed a conflictual tone in communication from faculty. In these instances, participants shared they would seek clarification from their colleagues. Ellisa described how she employed this strategy:

If something comes across via email or communication from faculty that doesn't rub me the right way, I might seek out an external person to read those documents or interpret them. And sometimes, my understanding is, they're like, Oh, no. I think what they meant to say was this. So, sometimes getting an outsider's point of view, especially with the different personalities that we do run into.

Hanna's experiences reflected this strategy of using the resourcefulness of her colleagues by recounting "they've been hugely helpful for me whenever I have delays or issues with faculty". Therefore, participants used collaboration with their colleagues to help guide them in navigating conflict with faculty.

Design Process

When the design process is fully in progress, instructional designers identified two overlapping strategies used to avoid conflict. Building upon the idea of seeking incremental change described earlier, participants expanded on how they prioritize design choices as the design process is underway. Pamela best described this strategy through her observations of other instructional designers:

The instructional designer has a whole crazy new idea, but it will take a lot of time, then maybe it's not the best way to go . . . also considering these kinds of things, like, how much time will it take for the subject matter expert to do this change, or how much effort can they really give to this new change or new technique design.

Instructional designers recognized proposing too much change through elaborate design choices can increase cognitive dissonance for faculty and result in tensions within the collaboration.

One of the most often cited conflict management approaches in this study was how instructional designers demonstrate examples of design proposals to faculty. Findings revealed a couple different aspects to this approach. First, a couple of instructional designers provide practitioner-based examples from past course designs projects. For instance, Allison recommended developing "a portfolio of good examples" to illustrate each design proposal in action. Oscar described how he used this approach: "I kind of show my work and kind of explain why my recommendation is what it is, and kind of show them how it's all connected". Second, the remaining instructional designers seemed to connect their design proposals to the existing research literature. Kenny best described this angle:

Faculty, to me, at least PhD faculty in higher education, respond well to having those research articles to draw from and use as examples. So the same way that they kind of require their students to critically think and go through that material, you have to approach it as they see you as a student, and you're having to convince them that you know what you're talking about, and that there is supporting information out there to back it up. That seems to get a long way, too.

Regardless of whether practical examples or research-based examples are used, instructional designers found providing evidence-based design proposals aided in preventing conflict with faculty.

Reflecting Upon Collaborations

Several of the instructional designer participants (N=4) shared a few strategies found to be helpful in becoming better prepared to prevent and manage collaborative conflict with faculty. All these strategies were reflective in nature and utilized post-collaboration. Significantly, all the approaches shared centered around the idea of instructional designers continuously sharpening and adding to their skill-set. For instance, two of our instructional designers described how integrating scholarly inquiry into their collaborations with faculty pushes them to learn to work with various types of people (e.g., faculty and other instructional designers) and learn whether or not the course designs are working from a learning perspective. Sadie described the conflict management skills she gained while working on a publication with a faculty collaborator:

So we worked with a diagram and he was able to visualize a concept map of the things he wanted to visualize. So like, this problem-solving process really motivated me or forced me to gain more skills whenever problems emerged . . . when you're working on these different projects, people and project management and talking with publishers, this can become an implicit side of skill gaining.

Issac explained how he used scholarly inquiry in the past experiences to learn how course design choices and changes impacted student learning. Specifically, for Issac, these "collective studies" are an effective tool for "showing the results" of course design to current and future faculty in collaborations.

Other instructional designers reported the training they received outside the instructional design profession has assisted in being able to better navigate conflict with faculty. Kevin suggested his undergraduate educational background in communications and continued pursuit of knowledge in this area allowed him to be more "well-rounded" when dealing with conflict. Likewise, Donna added additional training in "change management" provided the ability to analyze where "resistance comes from" when working with faculty.

Discussion

Analysis of the results indicate instructional designers employ a wide range of strategies to navigate conflict with faculty across three main phases of collaborations (i.e., at the outset, during, and post-collaboration). Almost all of the strategies reported by instructional designers centered more on conflict avoidance and less on how to manage instances of conflict when it arises with faculty. Specifically, participants shared how to strategize to prevent conflict with faculty through relationship building approaches, effective communication techniques and actions to take during the design process. When considering these approaches in tandem, they are interconnected and often utilized in conjunction with one another.

Many of the conflict prevention approaches described by our instructional designers were aimed at humanizing themselves in the eyes of the faculty, and concurrently meant to cultivate a sense of togetherness with faculty. When trying to nurture personal relationships and connections with faculty, participants attempted to meet faculty in informal settings with the goal of getting to know each faculty member prior to the launching of formal collaborations. This strategy is consistent with past research findings on how instructional designers' build collaborative relationships with faculty. For example, Richardson, et al. (2018) reported instructional designers found "getting to know [. . .]" faculty and making "connections with them as people [. . .]" were important in building trust and rapport within their relationships. Similarly, van Leusen, et al., (2016) observed instructional designers collaborating with faculty and found one way they built "trust and connections" with the faculty was through their "informal conversations" (p. 253).

Noticeably, participants shared several strategies seeming to convey to faculty the instructional designer's personal commitment and attentiveness to the faculty member. For instance, instructional designers reported expressing empathy and using active-listening techniques with faculty. In previous studies, instructional designers have identified empathy as an essential element in building successful collaborative relationships with faculty (Bawa & Watson, 2017) and active listening has been widely cited as a necessary skill for instructional designers (Fortney & Yamagata‐Lynch, 2013; Richardson et al., 2018; van Leusen, et al., 2016). When coupled with instructional designers' efforts to show interest and curiosity toward faculty's content area and teaching experiences, collectively, these strategies can help portray instructional designers as caring and engaged professionals. Moreover, participants' approaches to incentivize their collaborations with faculty, especially through joint research endeavors, is another way instructional designers try to promote cooperation. Instructional designers' approaches to humanizing themselves and cultivate togetherness with faculty in collaborations are grounded in the hopes that faculty will reciprocate. Therefore, diminishing the likelihood that conflict will derail the collaboration. Despite all of these efforts, instructional designers still noted routinely have to re-emphasizing their interdependence with faculty at various points in the collaboration which signals these strategies do not always result in success.

Subsequently, the remaining strategies identified by instructional designers were anchored in practicality, best construed by the expression of "getting out of one's own way". More specifically, the instructional designers who participated in this study did not want to be the source of conflict, and utilized these strategies to achieve this desired goal. For instance, participants' efforts to avoid miscommunication with faculty through purposeful communications techniques, including getting a communication plan in writing, was the first representation of this idea.

The need for instructional designers to be able to communicate with clients effectively and efficiently is well documented in the literature (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Gibby et al., 2002; Klein & Jun, 2014; van Leusen et al., 2016; Wakefield et al., 2012). Even when instructional designers perceived conflict coming from faculty, they took a cautious approach and consulted their colleagues for advice. This is closely aligned with our findings of instructional designers' willingness to adapt to faculty needs in order to avert conflict, which also has been found to be an important characteristic for successful collaborations (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Halupa, 2019; Richardson et al., 2018). An unexpected finding was instructional designers' recognition of typical steps in the design process (i.e., prioritizing design choices and showcasing examples of these suggestions to faculty) as conflict prevention approaches. This seems to indicate they may have experienced instances of conflict with faculty during these particular project phases.

Limitations and Future Research

Obtaining the perspectives and experiences of 14 instructional designer participants, this study unveiled a set of conflict prevention approaches these instructional designers utilize with faculty during collaborations. While we were only able to conduct one interview with each participant, we were able to complete 14 interviews providing a deeper range of experiences and approaches to consider and analyze. As with any research of participants' perceptions and experiences of conflict within their profession, one would anticipate some built-in limitations due to the sensitivity of the topic. For example, there were some instances notated by the interviewer where some of the participants seemed to be disinclined to expand upon the thoughts and experiences they were sharing during the interview.

Our findings seemed to uncover a potentially fertile line of future research. To start, an investigation of faculty's perceptions and experiences of conflict with instructional designers could provide perspectives of the other side of these collaborations. Also, researchers should examine how instructional designers in other workplace settings (e.g., corporate, K-12, etc.) manage conflict in collaborations. Building upon the preventative strategies identified in this study, future studies could concentrate on how instructional designers manage and mitigate conflict with faculty when it arises. While this may require a researcher mirroring an instructional designer through a collaborative project with faculty, it could provide invaluable and deeper insights into the conflict management strategies used by instructional designers.

Implications

Based on the interviews with participants, it is evident instructional designers actually spend quite a bit of time, thought, and energy trying to avoid conflict with faculty. This converges with clues from the literature (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Pan et al., 2003; Rubley, 2016; Tate, 2017), and our analysis that the potential for conflict is embedded within each phase of faculty collaboration for instructional designers. One implication is that conflict may be more pervasive within collaborations between faculty and instructional designers than originally suspected. Fortunately, many of the conflict prevention strategies shared by instructional designers were either directly connected or interconnected to the existing collaborative strategies within the literature (e.g., skills related to interpersonal communication, adaptability and problem solving). This has the potential of providing instructional designers a favorable position to managing conflict with faculty and other collaborators. However, the findings show instructional designers seem to be shouldering or, at least, feel primarily responsible for the conflict management within collaboration with faculty. To help alleviate some of this burden, universities and/or instructional design graduate programs could develop specialized training for instructional designers in conflict management strategies.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital Compass Learning: Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017. Babson survey research group. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/digital-learning-compass-distance-education-enrollment-report-2017/

Bawa, P., & Watson, S. (2017). The Chameleon Characteristics: A Phenomenological Study of Instructional Designer, Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions of Collaborative Instructional Design Environments. The Qualitative Report, 22(9), 2334-2355. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2915

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573

Campbell, K., Schwier, R., & Kenny, R. (2007). The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 645-663. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6

Castro-Figueroa, A. (2009). Conflicts and communication: Instructional designer and subject matter experts developing interdisciplinary online healthcare content (Publication No. 3380482) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest LLC. UNI number: 3380482

Chao, I., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912

Chen, Y., & Carliner, S. (2020). A Special SME: An Integrative Literature Review of the Relationship between Instructional Designers and Faculty in the Design of Online Courses for Higher Education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4), 471-495.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

D'Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(sup1), 116-131. doi: 10.1080/13561820500082529

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

Donohue, W. A. (1992). Managing interpersonal conflict (Vol. 4). Sage Publications.

Educause. (2020, November 2). The top IT issues, 2021: Emerging from the pandemic. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/11/top-it-issues-2021-emerging-from-the-pandemic

Ertmer, P.A., Stepich, D.A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., & Ushingusa, S. (2008). Ill-structured problem solving: Helping instructional design novices perform like experts.

Fortney, K. S., & Yamagata‐Lynch, L. C. (2013). How instructional designers solve workplace problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21130

Galletta, A. (2013) Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. NYU Press.

Gibby, S., Quiros, O., Demps, E., & Liu, M. (2002). Challenges of being an instructional designer for new media development: A view from the practitioners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 195-219.

Halupa, C. (2019). Differentiation of Roles: Instructional Designers and Faculty in the Creation of Online Courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 55-68. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p55

Hocker, J. & Wilmot, W., (2017). Interpersonal conflict (10th ed.) McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction [IBSTPI]. (2012). Instructional designer competencies. Retrieved from http://ibstpi.org/instructional-design-competencies/

Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide (Vol. 6). John Wiley & Sons.

Kampov-Polevoi, J. (2010). Considerations for supporting faculty in transitioning a course to online format. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2). Retrieved from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer132/kampov_polevoi132.html

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047239516661713

Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l'apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(1), 55-67. Doi: 10.21432/T2JW2P

Keppell, M. (2001). Optimizing Instructional Designer-Subject Matter Expert Communication in the Design and Development of Multimedia Projects. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2), 209-222.

Klein, J., & Jun, S. (2014). Skills for instructional design professionals. Performance Improvement, 53(2), 41-46. doi: 10.1002/pfi.21397

Lawson, H. A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of interprofessional care, 18(3), 225-237. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.1881

Lederach, J.P. (2003, October 3). Beyond Intractability-Conflict Information Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation

Levin, L. (2012). Towards a revised definition of client collaboration: the knowledge-power-politics triad. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2010.545121

Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2009). An instructional design approach for effective shovelware. In A. Orellana, T. Hudgins & M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 359-375). Information Age Publishing.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effective instruction (4 th ed.). John Willey & Sons.

Northouse, L. L., & Northouse, P. G. (1998). Health communication: Strategies for health professionals (3 rd ed.). Appleton & Lange.

Pan, C. C., Deets, J., Phillips, W., & Cornell, R. (2003). Pulling tigers' teeth without getting bitten: Instructional designers and faculty. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 289-302.

Pan, C.C.S., & Thompson, K. (2009). Exploring dynamics between instructional designers and higher education faculty: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 2(1), 33-52. doi: 10.18785/jetde.0201.03

Patton, M.Q. (2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Sage publications.

Rahim, M. A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 57-67.

Richardson, J.C., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A.N., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B.S., Krause, T.S., . . . & Wang, H. (2018). Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4

Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196

Rubley, J. N. (2016). Instructional designers in higher ed: Changing the course of next-generation learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education and Pearson Education Report. Retrieved from https://intentionalfutures.com/static/instructional-design-in-higher-education-report-5129d9d1e6c988c254567f91f3ab0d2c.pdf

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage publications.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75. doi:10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications.

Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. Springer.

Tate, E. (2017, May 3). Easing instructional designer-faculty conflicts. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2017/05/03/easing-conflicts-between-instructional-designers-and-faculty

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict‐positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(1), 19-28.

van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C. K. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 211-222. doi: 10.1108/eb022743

van Leusen, P., Ottenbreit-Lefwich, A. T., & Brush, T. (2016). Interpersonal consulting skills for instructional technology consultants: a multiple case study. Tech Trends, 60(3), 253-259. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0046-3

Wakefield, J., Warren, S., & Mills, L. (2012, March). Traits, skills, & competencies aligned with workplace demands: What today's instructional designers need to master. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3126-3132). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Wall Jr, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515-558. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014920639502100306

Wedman, J. F. (1989). Overcoming resistance to formal instructional development processes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 41-46. doi: 10.1007/bf02307720

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.

Appendix A: Interview guide

1. In the pre-survey, you identified that you have worked as an instructional designer for (confirmed number of years from pre-interview survey). How many of these years have been in higher education?

2. Could you please describe in more detail your current role and responsibilities as an instructional designer?

3. What type of collaborative projects do you usually work with faculty?

4. From your experience, what are some effective strategies you have or you have seen being used to approach conflict in collaboration with faculty?

5. What advice would you offer to an instructional designer who is new to working with faculty when it comes to effectively managing conflict that may arise?

Appendix B

Collaborative Phases

Conflict Mitigation & Management Strategies

Cultivating the Collaboration

Strengthening the Collaboration

Relationship Strengthening

Re-emphasize the interdependent relationship

Communication

Communication clearly and concisely with faculty

Adapt the communication plan (if needed)

Seek clarification from colleagues and mentors

Design Process

Prioritize design choices

Demonstrate examples of design proposals

Reflecting Upon Collaborations

Integrating scholarly inquiry into collaborations with faculty

Seek training outside instructional design

Chad M. Mueller

Purdue University

Jennifer C. Richardson

Purdue University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As internal and external demands for quality online offerings continue to rise in higher education, universities and colleges are prompted to incentivize faculty to transform their on-campus teachings to the online environment (Allen & Seaman, 2017). For many higher education institutions, the COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated the need to increase their online course offerings (Educause, 2020).

# data[].attributes.headline
The Emerging Story of Burnout in Educational Design 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Emerging Story of Burnout in Educational Design 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The field of instructional design dates back to a 1940s training and development model used by the US military. But since then it has evolved-and in some ways sprawled-to become a standard role across higher education.

Today, if your title includes instructional designer or learning designer, you likely feel like a Swiss Army knife. You are expected to be an expert at everything, and you likely find yourself responsible for designing courses, building learning materials, making sure the materials function properly, doing some coding and managing course-building projects.

On top of all that, instructional designers are also expected to have in-depth knowledge of the learning sciences, instructional-design theories and faculty development. This results in working long hours, lacking time for professional development and constantly trying to just keep up.

Of course, many of us went into this profession because we wanted to do creative work and care deeply about the student learning experience. Instead, it's easy to find instructional designers, or IDs, who describe their workplaces as "production shops," and themselves like "cogs in a wheel" because of pressure from leadership to push out courses faster and cheaper with a focus on revenues and financial ROI. That leads them to work long hours to put out work they still feel good about.

Yet despite the scope of instructional design, it is not typically considered a profession, and is frequently looked at by professors as mere tech support.

This is increasingly leading to burnout in the field-just as colleges seek more and more instructional designers to build online and hybrid courses.

"When we go into ID we expect creativity, to work with faculty, and be treated with respect," said Ella Epshteyn, a consultant working in instructional design for colleges. "People go in with passion, then get disappointed because they don't get the care, professional courtesy or respect they deserve."

Recently I was at a HAIL gathering for college innovation leaders, and the topic of burnout for instructional designers came up when I shared my feelings that ID's are seen as unappreciated utility players. "The work can be very tedious depending on the work environment," said Epshteyn. "I once left a job because I was so bored. A lot of us go into the field thinking we will do something engaging and fun. When it ends up being tedious, that is when we feel burnout."

Why the Increase in Stories of Burnout?

The topic of burnout is not new, and it comes up frequently in teaching and nursing professions.

A recent study by Deloitte, 77 percent of respondents in a variety of fields said they experienced burnout. The major reasons given in the report include lack of support and recognition, unrealistic deadlines and consistently long hours and working weekends-all commonly reported by instructional designers I've talked to.

Clark Shah-Nelson, assistant dean for instructional design and technology at the University of Maryland's School of Social Work, describes it this way: "When you don't look forward to going to work, when [it's] bad enough you don't see the joy in going to work [and] don't feel [a] connection to [the] larger workplace. In the context of a career, feeling stuck, no alternatives, not knowing where you want to be but knowing you don't want to be here."

Studies show that of all the things that can boost emotions, motivation and perceptions during a workday, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work. And that has become a problem in instructional design as a lack of time and resources for working on personally meaningful work has led many of us in the field to feel disillusioned.

"Jobs in academia are not easy to come by and location is often a luxury," said Autumm Caines, an instructional designer at the University of Michigan at Dearborn, recently changed jobs due to burnout. "This in itself can lead to that feeling of being trapped. Uprooting families and moving is not always practical, especially for women. So, it is often easy to stay in a job that is not exactly fulfilling. Stresses due to shrinking budgets in academia, as well as outside market pressures, are not helping."

"One of the biggest challenges for me," said Epshteyn, "has been life/work balance as a mom with four kids. A lot of higher ed institutions have very rigid requirements-they lack flexible work opportunities and don't allow remote work."

Lack of mobility is another issue. The ID's I spoke to talked of frustration around a lack of clear career path. More and more people are entering the field, excited, only to find there are few opportunities for career progression. They find themselves bored, doing the same job tasks over and over again. With no prospect of being rewarded for enhancing their job skills, and little autonomy-combined with feelings of lack of respect-results in people feeling burned out and leaving higher ed and/or the field, said Matt Crosslin, learning innovation researcher at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Shifting from Burnout to Thriving

We can approach the issue of burnout from two directions. First we need to recognize it is an issue and educate people about how to recognize and handle burnout. According to Workplace Strategies for Mental Health the following our signs of burnout:

Reduced efficiency and energy

Lowered levels of motivation

Increased errors

Fatigue

Headaches

Irritability

Increased frustration

Suspiciousness

More time spent working with less being accomplished

More importantly, we need our institutions to recognize the workplace environment that leads to this issue and begin to change the culture.

According to the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace feelings of their work not being important or appreciated can lead to greater instances of burnout. Many of the influential thinkers that have helped shape our educational systems-both historical, such as John Dewey, and contemporary, including Parker Palmer-have highlighted the importance of aligning one's passions and personal values with academic and vocational pursuits. There is also ample evidence to suggest that finding purpose in one's work produces better outcomes for students.

Supporting flexible work schedules, such as allowing work from home or work from anywhere can help, as can creating a documented career progression. As Caines suggested: "As leaders in a field, we can champion legitimizing remote work and collaboration opportunities. We can talk about burnout to try and raise awareness around it. Attempt to find ways of recognizing people's work outside of the institution at a professional organization or collaborative project level."

Clark Shah-Nelson, of the University of Maryland, described how some universities are moving beyond one level of instructional designer by adding a new category of senior instructional designer, and some institutions are even adding additional levels (similar to an assistant, associate, and full professor). Those levels can be tied to specific accomplishments, like learning new skills, completing professional development, publishing or making conference presentations. This gives people something to work toward-and the opportunity to align goals with personally meaningful work.

Making changes to job levels and descriptions can take time, as well as buy-in from leadership. Shah-Nelson described other, more "light-weight" ideas that could have a big impact. Make sure your team has down time for fun and to pursue their passions. He stressed the importance of not just suggesting people take the time, but making sure it is blocked off on people's calendars.

A fun idea he described is to try adding a magnetic dart board and a big whiteboard for an asynchronous game of darts. People can play a round as they are passing through and mark down their score. There are a lot of ways to be connected where people don't need to be there all at the same time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Emerging Story of Burnout in Educational Design - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The field of instructional design dates back to a 1940s training and development model used by the US military. But since then it has evolved-and in ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructional Design in Higher Education: Defining an Evolving Field - OLC

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructional Design in Higher Education: Defining an Evolving Field - OLC

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructional Designers in Higher Education: Roles,Challenges, and Supports

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructional Designers in Higher Education: Roles,Challenges, and Supports

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructional Design in Higher Education - 2016 Report

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructional Design in Higher Education - 2016 Report

# data[].attributes.headline
Connecting Teachers: A Community of Practice

# data[].attributes.subject
Connecting Teachers: A Community of Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Connecting Teachers: A Community of Practice | Michigan Virtual

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
True collegial groups among teachers, in any context, still remain the exception and not the norm in many schools — especially for online teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4.6.1 The theories behind communities of practice

The design of teaching often integrates different theories of learning. Communities of practice are one of the ways in which experiential learning, social constructivism, and connectivism can be combined, illustrating the limitations of trying to rigidly classify learning theories. Practice tends to be more complex.

4.6.2 What are communities of practice?

4.6.2.1 Definition:
Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.
Wenger, 2014

4.6.2.2 What are communities of practice?

The basic premise behind communities of practice is simple: we all learn in everyday life from the communities in which we find ourselves. Communities of practice are everywhere. Nearly everyone belongs to some community of practice, whether it is through our working colleagues or associates, our profession or trade, or our leisure interests, such as a book club. Wenger ( 2000) argues that a community of practice is different from a community of interest or a geographical community in that it involves a shared practice: ways of doing things that are shared to some significant extent among members.

4.6.2.3 Characteristics

Wenger argues that there are three crucial characteristics of a community of practice:

domain: a common interest that connects and holds together the community;

community: a community is bound by the shared activities they pursue (for example, meetings, discussions) around their common domain;

practice: members of a community of practice are practitioners; what they do informs their participation in the community; and what they learn from the community affects what they do.

4.6.2.4 Innovation and change

Wenger ( 2000) has argued that although individuals learn through participation in a community of practice, more important is the generation of newer or deeper levels of knowledge through the sum of the group activity. If the community of practice is centered around business processes, for instance, this can be of considerable benefit to an organization. Smith (2003) notes that:
...communities of practice affect performance..[This] is important in part because of their potential to overcome the inherent problems of a slow-moving traditional hierarchy in a fast-moving virtual economy. Communities also appear to be an effective way for organizations to handle unstructured problems and to share knowledge outside of the traditional structural boundaries. In addition, the community concept is acknowledged to be a means of developing and maintaining long-term organizational memory.
Brown and Duguid ( 2000) describe a community of practice developed around the Xerox customer service representatives who repaired the machines in the field. The Xerox reps began exchanging tips and tricks over informal meetings at breakfast or lunch and eventually Xerox saw the value of these interactions and created the Eureka project to allow these interactions to be shared across the global network of representatives. The Eureka database has been estimated to have saved the corporation $100 million. Companies such as Google and Apple are encouraging communities of practice through the sharing of knowledge across their many specialist staff.

2.6.2.5 Technologies

Technology provides a wide range of tools that can support communities of practice, as indicated by Wenger ( 2014) in the diagram below:

4.6.3 Designing effective communities of practice

Most communities of practice have no formal design and tend to be self-organising systems. They have a natural life cycle, and come to an end when they no longer serve the needs of the community. However, there is now a body of theory and research that has identified actions that can help sustain and improve the effectiveness of communities of practice.

Wenger, McDermott and Snyder ( 2002) have identified seven key design principles for creating effective and self-sustaining communities of practice, related specifically to the management of the community, although the ultimate success of a community of practice will be determined by the activities of the members of the community themselves. Designers of a community of practice need to:

4.6.3.1 Design for evolution

Ensure that the community can evolve and shift in focus to meet the interests of the participants without moving too far from the common domain of interest.

4.6.3.2 Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives

Encourage the introduction and discussion of new perspectives that come or are brought in from outside the community of practice.

4.6.3.3 Encourage and accept different levels of participation

Different levels of participation include:

the 'core' (most active members),

those who participate regularly but do not take a leading role in active contributions,

hose (likely the majority) who are on the periphery of the community but may become more active participants if the activities or discussions start to engage them more fully.

4.6.3.4 Develop both public and private community spaces

Communities of practice are strengthened if they encourage individual or group activities that are more personal or private as well as the more public general discussions; for instance, individuals may decide to blog about their activities, or a small group in an online community that live or work close together may also decide to meet informally on a face-to-face basis.

4.6.3.5 Focus on value

Attempts should be made explicitly to identify, through feedback and discussion, the contributions that the community most values.

4.6.3.6 Combine familiarity and excitement

Focus both on shared, common concerns and perspectives, but also on the introduction of radical or challenging perspectives for discussion or action.

4.6.3.7 Create a rhythm for the community

There needs to be a regular schedule of activities or focal points that bring participants together on a regular basis, within the constraints of participants' time and interests.

4.6.4 Critical factors for success

Subsequent research has identified a number of critical factors that influence the effectiveness of participants in communities of practice, These include being:

aware of social presence: individuals need to feel comfortable in engaging socially with other professionals or 'experts' in the domain, and those with greater knowledge must be willing to share in a collegial manner that respects the views and knowledge of other participants (social presence is defined as the awareness of others in an interaction combined with an appreciation of the interpersonal aspects of that interaction.)

motivated to share information for the common good of the community

able and willing to collaborate.

EDUCAUSE has developed a step-by-step guide for designing and cultivating communities of practice in higher education (Cambridge, Kaplan and Suter, 2005).

Lastly, research on other related sectors, such as collaborative learning or MOOCs, can inform the design and development of communities of practice. For instance, communities of practice need to balance between structure and chaos: too much structure and many participants are likely to feel constrained in what they need to discuss; too little structure and participants can quickly lose interest or become overwhelmed.

Many of the other findings about group and online behaviour, such as the need to respect others, observing online etiquette, and preventing certain individuals from dominating the discussion, are all likely to apply. However, because many communities of practice are by definition self-regulating, establishing rules of conduct and even more so enforcing them is really a responsibility of the participants themselves.

4.6.5 Learning through communities of practice in a digital age

Communities of practice are a powerful manifestation of informal learning. They generally evolve naturally to address commonly shared interests and problems. By their nature, they tend to exist outside formal educational organisations. Participants are not usually looking for formal qualifications, but to address issues in their life and to be better at what they do. Furthermore, communities of practice are not dependent on any particular medium; participants may meet face-to-face socially or at work, or they can participate in online or virtual communities of practice.

It should be noted that communities of practice can be very effective in a digital world, where the working context is volatile, complex, uncertain and ambiguous. A large part of the lifelong learning market will become occupied by communities of practice and self-learning, through collaborative learning, sharing of knowledge and experience, and crowd-sourcing new ideas and development. Such informal learning provision will be particularly valuable for non-governmental or charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross, Greenpeace or UNICEF, or local government, looking for ways to engage communities in their areas of operation.

These communities of learners will be open and free, and hence will provide a competitive alternative to the high priced lifelong learning programs being offered by research universities. This will put pressure on universities and colleges to provide more flexible arrangements for recognition of informal learning, in order to hold on to their current monopoly of post-secondary accreditation.

One of the significant developments in recent years has been the use of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for developing online communities of practice. MOOCs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, but it is worth discussing here the connection between MOOCs and communities of practice. The more instructionist xMOOCs are not really developed as communities of practice, because they use mainly a transmissive pedagogy, from experts to those considered less expert.

In comparison, connectivist MOOCs are an ideal way to bring together specialists scattered around the world to focus on a common interest or domain. Connectivist MOOCs are much closer to being virtual communities of practice, in that they put much more emphasis on sharing knowledge between more or less equal participants. However, current connectivist MOOCs do not always incorporate what research indicates are best practices for developing communities of practice, and those wanting to establish a virtual community of practice at the moment need some kind of MOOC provider to get them started and give them access to the necessary MOOC software.

Although communities of practice are likely to become more rather than less important in a digital age, it is probably a mistake to think of them as a replacement for traditional forms of education. There is no single, 'right' approach to the design of teaching. Different groups have different needs. Communities of practice are more of an alternative for certain kinds of learners, such as lifelong learners, and are likely to work best when participants already have some domain knowledge and can contribute personally and in a constructive manner - which suggests the need for at least some form of prior general education or training for those participating in effective communities of practice.

In conclusion, it is clear is that in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, and given the openness of the Internet, the social media tools now available, and the need for sharing of knowledge on a global scale, virtual communities of practice will become even more common and important. Smart educators and trainers will look to see how they can harness the strength of this design model, particularly for lifelong learning. However, merely lumping together large numbers of people with a common interest is unlikely to lead to effective learning. Attention needs to be paid to those design principles that lead to effective communities of practice.

References

Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (2000) Balancing act: How to capture knowledge without killing it Harvard Business Review.

Cambridge, D., Kaplan, S. and Suter, V. (2005) Community of Practice Design Guide L ouisville CO: EDUCAUSE

Smith, M. K. (2003) 'Communities of practice', the encyclopedia of informal education, accessed 26 September, 2014, but no longer in press

Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press

Wenger, E. (2014) Communities of practice: a brief introduction, accessed 5 October, 2019

Wenger, E, McDermott, R., and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice (Hardcover). Harvard Business Press; 1 edition.

Update and further reading

Wenger, E., Trayner, B. and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework Heerlen NL: The Open University of the Netherlands

This document presents a conceptual foundation for promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks. By value creation we mean the value of the learning enabled by community involvement and networking.

For an interesting critique of this paper, see:

Dingyloudi, F. and Strijbos, J. (2015) Examining value creation in a community of learning practice: Methodological reflections on story-telling and story-reading Seminar.net, Vol. 11, No.3

Activity 4.6 Making communities of practice work

1. Can you identify a community of practice to which you belong? Is it successful and does it meet the key design principles outlined above?

2. Could you think of a way to develop a community of practice that would support your work as a teacher?

3. Is there anything special you would need to do to make an online community of practice succeed that would not be necessary in a face-to-face community?

For my (not very deep) thoughts on these questions, click on the podcast below.

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/wp-content/uploads/sites/677/2014/09/CoP-2019-07-30-4.33-PM.mp3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching in a Digital Age - Second Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The design of teaching often integrates different theories of learning. Communities of practice are one of the ways in which experiential learning, social constructivism, and connectivism can be combined, illustrating the limitations of trying to rigidly classify learning theories. Practice tends to be more complex.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching in a Digital Age 2nd Edition Book

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching in a Digital Age 2nd Edition Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching in a Digital Age - Second Edition - Open Textbook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Book Description: The book examines the underlying principles that guide effective teaching in an age when all of us, and in particular the students we are teaching, are using technology. A framework for making decisions about your teaching is provided, while understanding that every subject is different, and every instructor has something unique and special to bring to their teaching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John M. Keller's ARCS Motivational Design Model explained

# data[].attributes.headline
Sorensen and Baylen's 7 Principles of Good Practice in Online Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
Sorensen and Baylen's 7 Principles of Good Practice in Online Teaching

# data[].attributes.body
Updated from Chickering and Gamson's 1987 Principles of Good Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson published their Seven Principles in 1987, synthesizing fifty years of research to develop seven principles that they viewed as core to effective teaching:

1. Good Practice Encourages Student-Faculty Contact

2. Good Practice Encourages Cooperation among Students

3. Good Practice Encourages Active Learning

4. Good Practice Gives Prompt Feedback

5. Good Practice Emphasizes Time on Task

6. Good Practice Communicates High Expectations

7. Good Practice Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning

You will undoubtedly recognize these as core to your own face-to-face teaching. As you beginning to explore online delivery of your courses, a natural question is how do you translate what you currently are doing as you transition your course online?

In reviewing the literature, many suggest that the while the content and the learning outcomes are the same, the manner in which that content is delivered and the interactions with students are quite different. Ko and Rosen (2008) suggest that developing an online course starts at the same place where you develop a face-to-face course. You set the goals for the course, describes the specific learning objectives, defines the tasks necessary to meet those objectives, and then creates applicable assignments around these tasks. The fundamentals are the same, the technique is very different. So in many ways, the design of an online course mirrors the design of a face-to-face course. Both have clear learning objectives. Assessment of learning is critical in both. Yet the fundamental practices for delivering the instruction and facilitating learner interaction are quite different.

Sorensen and Baylen (2009) adapted Chickering and Gamson's (1987) widely cited Seven Principles, deciding that the original seven principles were not enough to meet the needs of faculty who were new to teaching in online environments. Sorensen and Baylen's final principles, which parallel Chickering and Gamson's principles, included:

1. Student-teacher contact, a principle focusing on the interaction between a student and instructor in an online environment;

2. Cooperation among students, a principle for effective teaching focusing on cooperation among students;

3. Active learning, a principle emphasizing the importance of students to engage in meaningful learning activities and reflection on the process;

4. Prompt feedback, a principle focusing on giving guidance and feedback to ensure students are on the right track in terms of meeting course learning objectives;

5. Time on task, a principle concentrating on giving students assistance and guidance for managing their time in an online environment;

6. Communicate high expectations, a principle based on the theory that when instructors communicate to their students about high expectations for the course, students will aim to meet these expectations; and

7. Respect diverse ways of learning, a principle ensuring instructors are developing and implementing a wide variety of instructional strategies to meet the diverse population of students (p. 71).

Tie to this our observation that the web has become social. Online courses require your social presence in order for the course to be effective. Several studies have reinforced the importance of the faculty member's social presence in an online learning environment (Tu, 2000; Richardson and Swan, 2003; Rovai and Barnum, 2003; Palloff and Pratt, 2007). Social presence supports the notion that students see you (and each other) as "real" people in their online class.

This social presence of students leads to our second difference. Students need to form a learning community in order for the course to be effective. While you have traditionally worked to create a learning community in your face-to-face classes, a common mistake in translating educational work online is to see the process as individualistic. Earlier in this decade, nearly 80 percent of elearning was designed for solo work, which in effect made it little different from correspondence courses (Galvin, 2001). Research has shown that learning:

"is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Working with others often increases involvement in learning. Sharing one's own ideas and responding to others' reactions improves thinking and deepens understanding" (Chickering and Gamson, 1987, p. 1).

Finally, active engaged learning activities are required for the course to be effective. This is where the Seven Principles come in.

Good teaching online is no different than good teaching face-to-face, in that effective teaching incorporates each of these practices. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) expanded on these principles to illustrate that technology can be a lever to implementing these principles. The Task Force on Quality in Distance Education for the University System of Ohio has also adopted these seven principles as foundational to e-learning (Ohio Learning Network, 2003).

Therefore, to explore how you could translate your face-to-face experience to online teaching, it is helpful to see how other have translated these principles in an online environment (TLT Group, 2004; Graham et al, 2001). In our white paper, Building from Content to Community: [Re]Thinking the Transition to Online Teaching and Learning, we outlined a series of vignettes, supporting material and links to online tools meant to articulate how the seven principles can be applied as a means of supporting the transition to online teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Principles of Good Practice in Online Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson published their Seven Principles in 1987, synthesizing fifty years of research to develop seven principles that they viewed as core to effective teaching: Good Pr...

# data[].attributes.headline
Self Determination Theory and How it Works

# data[].attributes.subject
Self Determination Theory and How it Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Self Determination Theory and How It Explains Motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)identifies elements of human motivation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Model of Motivation-ARCS Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.subject
Model of Motivation-ARCS Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ARCS is an instructional design model and focuses on motivation. This model was developed by John M. Keller.

With the rise of online learning, there has been renewed interest in John Keller's Instructional Model of Motivation. It is much more challenging to motivate students online than it is in class. Keller's model offers ways to keep students on task throughout online instruction. It is based on expectancy-theory, which "assumes that people are motivated to engage in an activity if it is perceived to be linked to the satisfaction of personal needs (the value aspect) and if there is a positive expectancy for success (the expectancy aspect)" (Keller 1987).

Motivational design is defined as "the process of arranging resources and procedures to bring about changes in people's motivation" (Keller, 2010). Keller's Instructional Model of Motivation is also known as the ARCS Model, which is an acronym of the strategies used to ensure continued motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Each of these components is further broken down into three sub-categories, though all can be united into a systemic motivational process.

See also: Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction

Attention

The first letter of the Acronym, A, represents attention. Before any learning can take place either online or in the classroom, the instructor must have the student's attention. Attention must be sustained throughout the entire process in order for meaningful learning to take place. It is important that the students are engaged in the topic; this can be accomplished by catering to the interests of the class. We can capture their attention using three specific strategies:

Perceptual Arousal: capture their attention by using the element of surprise. For example, the instructor may use an opaque bag with a question mark on it as a hook to a lesson.

Inquiry Arousal: ask questions to stimulate their curiosity. For example, the instructor may present a problem and have students come up with different ideas or solutions.

Variability: offer a range of media to accommodate various student needs and interests. For example, the instructor could first display tangible steps on a projector before breaking the students into teams to practice.

See also: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in Education

Relevance

The second letter in the ARCS model, R, refers to relevance. In order for learners to retain information, they must view the experiences as meaningful, or relevant. There are a few ways to ensure that the information taught is relevant to the students.

Goal Orientation: learning goals are clearly communicated to students to help them achieve the highest odds of success. For example, the instructor may explain to the students how the objectives are useful in their everyday lives.

Motive Matching: learning goals are matched to the motives of students. For example, the instructor offers accommodations to classwork, such as presenting their research in the form of a presentation or a written piece.

Familiarity: the information taught is related to the personal experiences of the learners. For example, the instructor may ask students to make connections from their own lives to the ideas taught in class.

Confidence

The third section in the ARCS model, C, stands for confidence. This refers to the students' own belief to accomplish something and confidence in their ability for success. Strategies for confidence-boosting instruction can be incorporated into everyday teaching in various ways.

Learning Requirements: learning goals and criteria are clearly outlined so students know what to expect. For example, the instructor may provide evaluation requirements ahead of time, as well as examples of student work from previous classes.

Success Opportunities: the tasks are challenging enough for the students and there is an opportunity for them to be successful. For example, the instructor offers constructive feedback after the students have synthesized meaningful information.

Personal Responsibility: acknowledge the link between success in class and the effort put forth by the student. For example, the instructor may offer feedback that praises a student on their hard work.

Satisfaction

The last letter, S, represents satisfaction. Satisfaction is critical to continued success in learning. The students will be more motivated to learn if they are satisfied with the outcome. Instructors can promote satisfaction by implementing different strategies in class.

Intrinsic Reinforcement: the learning journey should be enjoyed. For example, the instructor has former students participate in the current class. They may offer encouragement and useful tips, or explain how this information was valuable in their own lives.

Extrinsic Rewards: constructive feedback and positive comments are the norm. For example, the instructor creates certificates for those who accomplish personal goals or contribute in class.

Equity: there are clear standards and criteria that are consistently enforced. For example, the instructor marks a project using the same criteria for everyone. Feedback is offered with the next steps directly related to the learning goal.

Not only does the ARCS model of motivation clearly identify different categories, each with different strategies to promote engagement, it also includes a 10-step process for motivational design. These steps help instructors identify weak points in the learning journey and address them appropriately to ensure student success.

From steps one to four, the instructor acquires and analyzes the data first presented in the course, which includes student motives and course content. They aim to identify potential issues that may occur throughout the learning process. Then, in steps five to eight, instructors try to identify potential strategies that may assist in motivating their learners. They try and engage students by incorporating these tactics into their teaching. In steps nine and ten, instructors develop the tasks themselves and then conduct an evaluation on the activity. They are looking specifically to see if the motivational strategies were effective in student learning. The ten motivational design steps are neatly summarized in the table below:
Motivational Design Steps

1. Acquisition of course information

2. Acquisition of audience information

3. Analysis of audience motivation

4. Analysis of motivational tactics in existing materials

1. Description of motivational goals and assessment methods

2. Identification of potential tactics

3. Design of tactics

4. Integration of motivational tactics with instructional plans

Development of materials

Evaluation of student reactions

ARCS Examples
K-12 Example: Recycling Unit
A: Create a display of landfill photos, barges, etc.

R: Keep a daily trash log, identify what each student throws out / recycles in a 24 hour period of time.

C: Create a plan for the class to lead a recycling program at the school.

S: At the end of the unit, tally up and report the amount of items that were RECYCLED due to the class effort.
Training Example: Customer Service
A: Begin with a video of humorous non-example.

R: Throughout the training utilize scenarios directly from the employees experience (possible pull these examples from a pre-training server or SME input).

C: Create a job aid to guide the desired structure / type of response. Easy to use and apply.

S: Role play behaviors in the training; provide specific praise to the steps as they are followed.
References:
J.M. Keller. Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach (1st ed.), Springer, New York (2010)

Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Model of Motivation: ARCS Instructional Design - Education Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ARCS is an instructional design model and focuses on motivation. This model was developed by John...

# data[].attributes.headline
Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructional Design/Reducing Cognitive Load in multimedia instruction/Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructional Design/Reducing Cognitive Load in multimedia instruction/Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning model depicts all that dual-channel processing going in the learner's mind when using multimedia instruction. This model was created by Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno and presented in their paper "Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning" in 2003. Keep in mind the three assumptions of Dual Channel, Limited Capacity and Active Processing, as we explore the cognitive theory of multimedia learning.

(Mayer & Moreno based their model, in part, on the The Dual-coding Theory by Allan Paivio).

The two rows of the model represent the two information-processing channels: the auditory/verbal channel and the visual/pictorial channel (dual-channel assumption). The five columns each represent the modes of knowledge representations or physical representations, such as words or pictures. Sensory representations are those that take place in the ears or eyes of the learner, while shallow working memory representations are the sounds or images a learner notices or attends to during the instruction. Deep working memory representations are verbal and pictorial models constructed by the learner, and lastly, long-term memory representations are what the learner already knows about this particular instruction.

Multimedia Learning requires a lot of cognitive processing in both channels. Working memory has to make representations of sounds and images. Deep working memory is busy making verbal and pictorial models, and long-term memory is searching for and retrieving relevant prior knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instructional design/Reducing cognitive load in multimedia instruction/Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning - Wikiversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning model depicts all that dual-channel processing going in the learner's mind when using multimedia instruction. This model was created by Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno and presented in their paper "Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning" in 2003.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
E-learning theory describes the cognitive science principles of effective multimedia learning using electronic educational technology.

Beginning with cognitive load theory as their motivating scientific premise, researchers such as Richard E. Mayer, John Sweller, and Roxana Moreno established within the scientific literature a set of multimedia instructional design principles that promote effective learning. Many of these principles have been "field tested" in everyday learning settings and found to be effective there as well. The majority of this body of research has been performed using university students given relatively short lessons on technical concepts with which they held low prior knowledge. However, David Roberts has tested the method with students in nine social science disciplines including sociology, politics and business studies. His longitudinal research programme over 3 years established a clear improvement in levels of student engagement and in the development of active learning principles among students exposed to a combination of images and text, over students exposed only to text. A number of other studies have shown these principles to be effective with learners of other ages and with non-technical learning content.

Research using learners who have greater prior knowledge in the lesson material sometimes finds results that contradict these design principles. This has led some researchers to put forward the "expertise effect" as an instructional design principle unto itself.

The underlying theoretical premise, cognitive load theory, describes the amount of mental effort that is related to performing a task as falling into one of three categories: germane, intrinsic, and extraneous. Germane cognitive load is the mental effort required to process the task's information, make sense of it, and access and/or store it in long-term memory (for example, seeing a math problem, identifying the values and operations involved, and understanding that your task is to solve the math problem). Intrinsic cognitive load is the mental effort required to perform the task itself (for example, actually solving the math problem). Extraneous cognitive load is the mental effort imposed by the way that the task is delivered, which may or may not be efficient (for example, finding the math problem you are supposed to solve on a page that also contains advertisements for books about math).

The multimedia instructional design principles identified by Mayer, Sweller, Moreno, and their colleagues are largely focused on minimizing extraneous cognitive load and managing intrinsic and germane loads at levels that are appropriate for the learner. Examples of these principles in practice include

Reducing extraneous load by eliminating visual and auditory effects and elements that are not central to the lesson, such as seductive details (the coherence principle)

Reducing germane load by delivering verbal information through audio presentation (narration) while delivering relevant visual information through static images or animations (the modality principle)

Controlling intrinsic load by breaking the lesson into smaller segments and giving learners control over the pace at which they move forward through the lesson material (the segmenting principle).

Cognitive load theory (and by extension many of the multimedia instructional design principles) is based in part on a model of working memory by Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch who proposed that working memory has two largely independent, limited capacity sub-components that tend to work in parallel - one visual and one verbal/acoustic. This gave rise to dual-coding theory, first proposed by Allan Paivio and later applied to multimedia learning by Richard Mayer. According to Mayer, separate channels of working memory process auditory and visual information during any lesson. Consequently, a learner can use more cognitive processing capacities to study materials that combine auditory verbal information with visual graphical information than to process materials that combine printed (visual) text with visual graphical information. In other words, the multi-modal materials reduce the cognitive load imposed on working memory.

In a series of studies, Mayer and his colleagues tested Paivio's dual-coding theory, with multimedia lesson materials. They repeatedly found that students given multimedia with animation and narration consistently did better on transfer questions than those who learn from animation and text-based materials. That is, they were significantly better when it came to applying what they had learned after receiving multimedia rather than mono-media (visual only) instruction. These results were then later confirmed by other groups of researchers.

The initial studies of multimedia learning were limited to logical scientific processes that centered on cause-and-effect systems like automobile braking systems, how a bicycle pump works or cloud formation. However, subsequent investigations found that the modality effect extended to other areas of learning.

Empirically established principles

Multimedia principle: Deeper learning is observed when words and relevant graphics are both presented than when words are presented alone (also called the multimedia effect). Simply put, the three most common elements in multimedia presentations are relevant graphics, audio narration, and explanatory text. Combining any two of these three elements works better than using just one or all three.

Modality principle: Deeper learning occurs when graphics are explained by audio narration instead of onscreen text. Exceptions have been observed when learners are familiar with the content, are not native speakers of the narration language, or when only printed words appear on the screen. Generally speaking, audio narration leads to better learning than the same words presented as text on the screen. This is especially true for walking someone through graphics on the screen, and when the material to be learned is complex or the terminology being used is already understood by the student (otherwise see "pre-training"). One exception to this is when the learner will be using the information as a reference and will need to look back to it again and again.

Coherence principle: Avoid using unnecessary content (irrelevant video, graphics, music, stories, narration, etc.) in order to minimize cognitive load imposed on memory during learning by irrelevant and possibly distracting content. Basically, the less learners know about the lesson content, the easier it is for them to get distracted by anything shown that is not directly relevant to the lesson. For learners with greater prior knowledge, however, some motivational imagery may increase their interest and learning effectiveness just a bit.

Contiguity principle: Keep related pieces of information together. Deeper learning occurs when relevant text (for example, a label) is placed close to graphics or when spoken words and graphics are presented at the same time, or when feedback is presented next to the answer given by the learner.

Segmenting principle: Deeper learning occurs when content is broken into small chunks. Break down long lessons into several shorter lessons. Break down long text passages into multiple shorter ones.

Signalling principle: The use of visual, auditory, or temporal cues to draw attention to critical elements of the lesson. Common techniques include arrows, circles, highlighting or bolding text, and pausing or vocal emphasis in narration. Ending lesson segments after the critical information has been given may also serve as a signalling cue.

Learner control principle: Deeper learning occurs when learners can control the rate at which they move forward through segmented content. Learners tend to do best when the narration stops after a short, meaningful segment of content is given and the learner has to click a "continue" button in order to start the next segment. Some research suggests not overwhelming the learner with too many control options, however. Giving just pause and play buttons may work better than giving pause, play, fast forward, reverse buttons. Also, high prior-knowledge learners may learn better when the lesson moves forward automatically, but they have a pause button that allows them to stop when they choose to do so.

Personalization principle: Deeper learning in multimedia lessons occur when learners experience a stronger social presence, as when a conversational script or learning agents are used. The effect is best seen when the tone of voice is casual, informal, and in a 1st person ("I" or "we") or 2nd person ("you") voice. For example, of the following two sentences, the second version conveys more of a casual, informal, conversational tone:

A. The learner should have the sense that someone is talking directly to them when they hear the narration.

B. Your learner should feel like someone is talking directly to them when they hear your narration.

Also, research suggests that using a polite tone of voice ("You may want to try multiplying both sides of the equation by 10.") leads to deeper learning for low prior knowledge learners than does a less polite, more directive tone of voice ("Multiply both sides of the equation by 10."), but may impair deeper learning in high prior knowledge learners. Finally, adding pedagogical agents (computer characters) can help if used to reinforce important content. For example, have the character narrate the lesson, point out critical features in on-screen graphics, or visually demonstrate concepts to the learner.

Pre-training principle: Deeper learning occurs when lessons present key concepts or vocabulary prior to presenting the processes or procedures related to those concepts. According to Mayer, Mathias, and Wetzel, "Before presenting a multimedia explanation, make sure learners visually recognize each major component, can name each component and can describe the major state changes of each component. In short, make sure learners build component models before presenting a cause-and-effect explanation of how a system works." However, others have noted that including pre-training content appears to be more important for low prior knowledge learners than for high prior knowledge learners.

Redundancy principle: Deeper learning occurs when lesson graphics are explained by audio narration alone rather than audio narration and on-screen text. This effect is stronger when the lesson is fast-paced and the words are familiar to the learners. Exceptions to this principle include: screens with no visuals, learners who are not native speakers of the course language, and placement of only a few key words on the screen (i.e., labelling critical elements of the graphic image).

Expertise effect: Instructional methods, such as those described above, that are helpful to domain novices or low prior knowledge learners may have no effect or may even depress learning in high prior knowledge learners.

Such principles may not apply outside of laboratory conditions. For example, Muller found that adding approximately 50% additional extraneous but interesting material did not result in any significant difference in learner performance. There is ongoing debate concerning the mechanisms underlying these beneficial principles, and on what boundary conditions may apply.

Good pedagogical practice has a theory of learning at its core. However, no single best-practice e-learning standard has emerged. This may be unlikely given the range of learning and teaching styles, the potential ways technology can be implemented and the ways in which educational technology itself is changing. Various pedagogical approaches or learning theories may be considered in designing and interacting with e-learning programs.

Social-constructivist - this pedagogy is particularly well afforded by the use of discussion forums, blogs, wiki and online collaborative activities. It is a collaborative approach that opens educational content creation to a wider group including the students themselves. The One Laptop Per Child Foundation attempted to use a constructivist approach in its project.

Laurillard's conversational model is also particularly relevant to eLearning, and Gilly Salmon's Five-Stage Model is a pedagogical approach to the use of discussion boards.

Cognitive perspective focuses on the cognitive processes involved in learning as well as how the brain works.

Emotional perspective focuses on the emotional aspects of learning, like motivation, engagement, fun, etc.

Behavioural perspective focuses on the skills and behavioural outcomes of the learning process. Role-playing and application to on-the-job settings.

Contextual perspective focuses on the environmental and social aspects which can stimulate learning. Interaction with other people, collaborative discovery and the importance of peer support as well as pressure.

Mode neutral Convergence or promotion of 'transmodal' learning where online and classroom learners can coexist within one learning environment thus encouraging interconnectivity and the harnessing of collective intelligence.

For many theorists, it's the interaction between student and teacher and student and student in the online environment that enhances learning (Mayes and de Freitas 2004). Pask's theory that learning occurs through conversations about a subject which in turn helps to make knowledge explicit has an obvious application to learning within a VLE.

Salmon developed a five-stage model of e-learning and e-moderating that for some time has had a major influence where online courses and online discussion forums have been used. In her five-stage model, individual access and the ability of students to use the technology are the first steps to involvement and achievement. The second step involves students creating an identity online and finding others with whom to interact; online socialisation is a critical element of the e-learning process in this model. In step 3 students are giving and sharing information relevant to the course to each other. Collaborative interaction amongst students is central to step 4. The fifth step in Salmon's model involves students looking for benefits from the system and using resources from outside of it to deepen their learning. Throughout all of this, the tutor/teacher/lecturer fulfils the role of moderator or e-moderator, acting as a facilitator of student learning.

Some criticism is now beginning to emerge. Her model does not easily transfer to other contexts (she developed it with experience from an Open University distance learning course). It ignores the variety of learning approaches that are possible within computer mediated communication (CMC) and the range of learning theories that are available (Moule 2007).

Self-regulation

Self-regulated learning refers to several concepts that play major roles in learning, and which have significant relevance in e-learning. Zimmerman (1998)[citation needed ] explains that in order to develop self-regulation, learning courses should offer opportunities for students to practice strategies and skills by themselves. Self-regulation is also strongly related to a student's social sources such as parents and teachers. Moreover, Steinberg (1996) found that high-achieving students usually have high-expectation parents who monitor their children closely.

With the academic environment, self-regulated learners usually set their academic goals and monitor and react themselves in process in order to achieve their goals. Schunk argues, "students must regulate not only their actions but also their underlying achievement-related cognitions, beliefs, intentions and effects"(p. 359). Moreover, academic self-regulation also helps students develop confidence in their ability to perform well in e-learning courses.

Theoretical framework

E-learning literature identifies an ecology of concepts, from a bibliometric study were identified the most used concepts associated with the use of computers in learning contexts, e.g. computer assisted instruction (CAI), computer assisted learning (CAL), computer-based education (CBE), e-learning, learning management systems (LMS), self-directed learning (SDL), and massive open online courses (MOOC). All these concepts have two aspects in common: learning and computers; except the SDL concept, which derives from psychology, and does not necessarily apply to computer usage. These concepts are yet to be studied in scientific research, and stand in contrast to MOOCs. Nowadays, e-learning can also mean massive distribution of content and global classes for all the Internet users. E-learning studies can be focused on three principal dimensions: users, technology, and services. According to Aparicio, Bacao & Oliveira " The e-learning systems' theoretical framework contains the three main components of information systems. These components are people, technologies, and services. People interact with e-learning systems. E-learning technologies enable the direct or indirect interaction of the different groups of users. Technologies provide support to integrate content, enable communication, and provide collaboration tools. E-learning services integrate all the activities corresponding to pedagogical models and to instructional strategies. The complex interaction combination is the direct or indirect action with e-learning systems. At the same time, systems provide services according to the specified strategies for activities. In other words, service specifications are e-learning activities aligned with the e-learning pedagogical models and the instructional strategies".

As alluded to at the beginning of this section, the discussion of whether to use virtual or physical learning environments is unlikely to yield an answer in the current format. First, as noted, the efficacy of the learning environment may depend on the concept being taught (Chini, Madsen, Gire, Rebello, & Puntambekar, 2012). Additionally, comparisons provide differences in learning theories as explanations for the differences between virtual and physical environments as somewhat of a post-mortem explanation (Barrett, Stull, Hsu, & Hegarty, 2015). When virtual and physical environments were designed so that the same learning theories were employed by the students, (Physical Engagement, Cognitive Load, Embodied Encoding, Embodied Schemas, and Conceptual Salience), differences in post-test performance did not lie between physical vs. virtual, but instead in how the environment was designed to support the particular learning theory (Rau & Schmidt, 2019).

These findings suggest that as long as virtual learning environments are well designed (Mayer, 2009) and able to emulate the most important aspects of the physical environment that they are intended to replicate or enhance, research that has been previously applied to physical models or environments can also be applied to virtual ones (Dawley & Dede, 2014; Yuan, Lee, & Wang, 2010) . This good news means that we can apply a wealth of research from physical learning theory to virtual environments. These virtual learning environments - once developed - can present cost effective solutions to learning, with respect to time invested in set up, use, and iterative use (Durmu & Karakirik, 2006). Additionally, due to the relatively low cost, students are able to perform advanced analytical techniques without the cost of lab supplies (de Jong, Linn, & Zacharia, 2013). Many even believe that when considering the appropriate affordances of each (virtual or physical) representation, a blend that uses both can further enhance student learning (Olympiou & Zacharia, 2012).

Computing technology was not created by teachers. There has been little consultation between those who promote its use in schools and those who teach with it. Decisions to purchase technology for education are very often political decisions. Most staff using these technologies did not grow up with them. Training teachers to use computer technology did improve their confidence in its use, but there was considerable dissatisfaction with training content and style of delivery. The communication element, in particular, was highlighted as the least satisfactory part of the training, by which many teachers meant the use of a VLE and discussion forums to deliver online training (Leask 2002). Technical support for online learning, lack of access to hardware, poor monitoring of teacher progress and a lack of support by online tutors were just some of the issues raised by the asynchronous online delivery of training (Davies 2004).

Newer generation web 2.0 services provide customizable, inexpensive platforms for authoring and disseminating multimedia-rich e-learning courses, and do not need specialised information technology (IT) support.

Pedagogical theory may have application in encouraging and assessing online participation. Assessment methods for on-line participation have reviewed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
E-learning theory describes the cognitive science principles of effective multimedia learning using electronic educational technology. Beginning with cognitive load theory as their motivating scientific premise, researchers such as Richard E. Mayer, John Sweller, and Roxana Moreno established within the scientific literature a set of multimedia instructional design principles that promote effective learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
ASSESSMENT AND COLLABORATION IN ONLINE LEARNING

# data[].attributes.subject
ASSESSMENT AND COLLABORATION IN ONLINE LEARNING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ASSESSMENT AND COLLABORATION IN ONLINE LEARNING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perhaps the greatest challenge that I experienced as a practitioner, researcher, and technology developer of online education, were the questions: "Does OCL work?" "How do you know it works?" "Is it effective?" and "Can you demonstrate learning effectiveness"? I felt these questions were of the highest ethical and educational priority for our students, our teachers, the public, and the field, and thus began the development of a theory that would explain what OCL was and how we could identify learning within activities that were based on OCL pedagogies.

The challenge as I experienced it was not just that I was proposing to offer higher education courses in a very new and unknown environment-that itself was a significant challenge. But far more difficult was the lack of research literature to define or demonstrate effective learning in general. Didactic learning, dominant in the 21st century, was defined as getting "the right answer"; the measure was based on efficient learning as demonstrated by quizzes and exams. Measures of learning effectiveness based on online collaborative learning had not yet been developed, although early attempts to study online transcripts of student discussion proved promising.

A theory of learning should define and explain the indicators of learning in order to assess the quality of learning taking place, that is, the effectiveness. This need became the driver for me to develop a Collaborativism (aka OCL), to provide a framework for the field that took into account the invention of online technologies, and could explain, study and assess the quality of collaborative learning that occurred online.

Building of a theory based on field practice could help educators and others to establish benchmarks and criteria for success as well as pedagogical approaches to implement OCL.

Online collaborative learning theory emphasizes the role of peer discourse as key to learning and defines learning as intellectual convergence, achieved through three progressive stages of group discourse: Idea Generating, Idea Organizing and Intellectual Convergence.

Idea Generating. The first phase, Idea Generating, refers to divergent thinking within a group; brainstorming, verbalization, generating information, and thus sharing of ideas and positions on a particular topic or problem. Many perspectives emerge. The role of the instructor is to facilitate idea generation and encourage active participation by all members of the group.

Idea Organizing. Phase two, Idea Organizing, is the beginning of conceptual change. As participants confront the new or different ideas which had been generated by their peers or encountered in the course readings, they begin to discuss in a more focused way to clarify and cluster these many ideas according to their relationship and similarities to one another. Idea organizing behavior demonstrates intellectual progress and the beginning of convergence, as students discuss and/or debate to select the strongest and weedi out weaker positions (using such processes as referencing, agreement, disagreement or questioning).

Intellectual Convergence. The third phase, Intellectual Convergence, is typically reflected in shared understanding, a shared position (including agreeing to disagree), or a mutual contribution to and construction of shared knowledge.

Collaborativist theory is distinct from constructivist learning theory; nonetheless, collaborativism builds on constructivist learning theory by exploring and emphasizing the role of discourse as theorized by Lev Vygotsky.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perhaps the greatest challenge that I experienced as a practitioner, researcher, and technology developer of online education, were the questions: "Does OCL work?" "How do you know it works?" "Is it effective?" and "Can you demonstrate learning effectiveness"?

# data[].attributes.headline
Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses

# data[].attributes.subject
Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses

# data[].attributes.headline
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.subject
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design

# data[].attributes.headline
Concepts of Online Collaborative Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Concepts of Online Collaborative Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Concepts of Online Collaborative Learning

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Supporting the Community of Inquiry

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Supporting the Community of Inquiry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Garrison's CoI Foundational Research Papers: Garrison CoI Foundational References (.doc)
Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020, March 24). 20 Years of the Community of Inquiry Framework. TechTrends.
The Community of Inquiry framework is a collaborative-constructivist process model that describes the essential elements of a successful online higher education learning experience. This history column entry briefly describes the 20 years of progress in the framework. The column is divided into two decades, first, explaining the establishment of the framework from 2000-2009. Second, discussing the use of the instrument to measure the dimensions of the Community of Inquiry and criticism to the framework from 2010-2019. Finally, current work and future directions are provided.
Flock, H. (2020). Designing a Community of Inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 134-152.
This article describes a practical approach for implementing instructional strategies in order to build a Community of Inquiry (CoI) into an online course. Online community building has positive effects on the quality of student learning, increases student engagement, and encourages motivation of students in online courses. The CoI is a theoretical framework focusing on facilitating meaningful learning experiences through three presences: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. This article will introduce the CoI framework by way of literature review focusing on CoI instructional strategies. Using Sorensen and Baylen's (2009) seven principles of good practice, the author will structure CoI instructional activities into presence categories for practitioner use.
Bozkurt, A. (2019). Intellectual roots of distance education: a progressive knowledge domain analysis. Distance Education, 1-18. Chicago.
"The fourth and ﬁnal pivotal contribution and the one with the greatest impact was made by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000, 2001), who introduced the community of inquiry (CoI) model and its three elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. The value of the CoI lies in its potential to provide eﬀective learning experiences in computer-based, online educational spaces."
Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, K, & Swan, K. (2019). An Exploration of the Relationship Between Indicators of the Community of Inquiry Framework and Retention in Online Programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1).
As the growth of online programs continues to rapidly accelerate, concern over retention is increasing. Models for understanding student persistence in the face-to-face environment are well established, however, the many of the variables in these constructs are not present in the online environment or they manifest in significantly different ways. With attrition rates significantly higher than in face-to-face programs, the development of models to explain online retention is considered imperative. This study moves in that direction by exploring the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry Framework and student persistence. Analysis of over 28,000 student records and survey data demonstrates a significant amount of variance in re-enrollment can be accounted for by indicators of Social Presence.
Dempsey, P. R., & Jang, J. (2019). Re-examining the construct validity and causal relationships of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in Community of Inquiry framework. Online Learning Journal, 23(1), 62-79.
Despite the prevalence of research on the Community of Inquiry framework and its associated measurement instrument, more research is needed to re-evaluate the factor structure, study the effects of covariates or measurement invariance, and explore the relationships among the three presences. Results of this study indicated that (a) teaching, social, and cognitive presence are each multidimensional and higher order constructs; (b) measurement invariance was fully achieved for gender and partially for age, ethnicity, discipline, and online experience; (c) structural relationships of the three main constructs-teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence- suggested potential psychometric adjustments. The teaching presence construct in particular should be reconstructed to appropriately reflect and measure the construct as conceptually defined-as a distribution of teaching responsibility and authority-as opposed to how it is currently operationalized in the Community of Inquiry instrument-as a centralization of responsibility and authority with the instructor.
Hilliarda, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. Internet and Higher Education, 41, 11-24.
This study examines whether blended first-year writing courses can function as Communities of Inquiry and analyzes whether the amount of time spent online impacts the extent to which students positively perceive teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. A modified version of the 34-item Community of Inquiry survey instrument was delivered to students enrolled in 22 sections of a FYW course at the same university. Findings indicate students in high blend (50% online) classes perceived greater degrees of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence than students in medium blend (33% online) classes. Analysis of survey results, alongside observations of the assigned online activities, suggest a correlation between online time on task and interactive learning activities that promote collaborative student-student interactions. Implications for blended writing instructors and opportunities for future research are discussed.
Lawa, K. M. Y., Gengb, S., & Lic, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers & Education, 136, 1-12.
This study investigated the effects of student enrolment and learning motivation on learning performance in a blended learning setting at the university level with social, teaching, and learning presence as mediating factors. Data samples were collected from 96 students taking blended learning course and 111 students taking a traditional course. The comparison between these two groups does not show a significant difference in the three presences and learning performance. Structural equation modelling results revealed that student enrolment has a positive impact on social presence and cognitive presence. Enrolment also positively influences learning performance through the above two presences. Learning motivation positively influence social presence only. Learning motivation also plays a vital role in enhancing the enrolment but does not directly influence learning performance in a blended learning setting. Teaching presence was found to have direct positive impacts on the cognitive presence and social presence, and indirect positive impacts on learning performance. These findings highlight the importance of student enrolment and course design from the teaching perspective in a blended learning setting.
Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Lins, R. D., & Gasevic, D. (2019). A Network Analytic Approach to Uncovering the Relationship between Social and Cognitive Presences in Communities of Inquiry. Internet and Higher Education.

This paper presents a network-based approach to uncovering the relationship between the elements of social and cognitive presences in a community of inquiry. The paper demonstrates how epistemic network analysis (ENA) can provide new qualitative and quantitative insights into the students' development of social and critical thinking skills in communities of inquiry. More specifically, ENA was used to accomplish three different research goals: i) uncovering links between social and cognitive presences of communities of inquiry; ii) evaluating the effectiveness of two instructional interventions on student experience as measured by connections between cognitive and social presences; and iii) exploring how the relationship between social and cognitive presences changed over time during a course. The proposed approach was applied to the coded transcripts of asynchronous online discussions performed in a fully-online graduate level course. The results of this study showed that indicators of social presence had more association with the exploration and integration phases of cognitive presence. Besides, indicators of the affective category of social presence had stronger links with the two high levels of cognitive presence (i.e., integration and resolution), while indicators of interactive messages of social presence were more connected to the two low levels (triggering events and exploration) of cognitive presence.
Velázquez, B. B., Gil-Jaurena, I., Encina, J. M. (2019). Validation of the Spanish version of the 'Community of Inquiry' survey. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 59(4), 1-26. Zhu, M., Herring, S. C. & Bonk, C. (2019). Exploring presence in online learning through three forms of computer-mediated discourse analysis. Distance Education.

This case study examined patterns in online communication using computer-mediated discourse analysis to better understand how teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence are manifested in an online learning environment. The findings indicate that study participants actively participated in the discussion. The instructor and facilitators displayed high teaching presence through posting encouraging social words and maintaining a positive emotional tone, which created an open communication environment for student discussion. To promote students' cognitive development, the acts that their words described included to "inform" and "elaborate" to help students construct knowledge by providing factual information and extending or embellishing upon points made. Students displayed social presence by using more social and positive emotion words, and tone, which signaled that they were satisfied with the discussion. Students' cognitive presence was manifested through making claims, providing information and elaboration on posted comments.
Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1-12. Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S., Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 119, 44-58.
This study presents an evaluation of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) within the context of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The study reports the results of a reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis of the CoI survey instrument using the data of 1487 students from five MOOC courses. The findings confirmed the reliability and validity of the CoI survey instrument for the assessment of the key dimensions of the CoI model: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Although the CoI survey instrument captured the same latent constructs within the MOOC context as in the Garrison's three-factor model (Garrison et al., 1999), analyses suggested a six-factor model with additional three factors as a better fit to the data. These additional factors were 1) course organization and design (a sub-component of teaching presence), 2) group affectivity (a sub-component of social presence), and 3) resolution phase of inquiry learning (a sub-component of cognitive presence). The emergence of these additional factors revealed that the discrepancies between the dynamics of the traditional online courses and MOOCs affect the student perceptions of the three CoI presences. Based on the results of our analysis, we provide an update to the famous CoI model which captures the distinctive characteristics of the CoI model within the MOOC setting. The results of the study and their implications are further discussed.
Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the Nth presence for the Community of Inquiry framework. Computers & Education, 122, 104-118.
The purpose of the present study was to provide a comprehensive and descriptive review of the earlier research done on the refinement of the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, 2001, 2010) that has greatly influenced both research and practice in online education so far. To this end, the current review included peer-reviewed journal articles only by handling them both individually and determining their common theoretical and methodological aspects. The results revealed that previous research produced very significant insights into the revision of the framework by producing four new presence types and seven presence dimensions. However, there were some theoretical, methodological and empirical gaps that need to be addressed in the future. Specifically speaking, these gaps ranged from addressing certain educational contexts to focusing on statistical significance only in some of earlier research. Accordingly, all the findings led to the conclusion that addressing the existing gaps in further research would enrich our understanding of the Community of Inquiry framework thereby adding to the contributions of previous revision studies done on it and positively impacting online learning research and practice.
Saadatmand, M., Uhlin, L., Åbjörnsson, L., & Kvarnström, M. (2017). Examining Learners' Interaction in an Open Online Course through the Community of Inquiry Framework. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 20(1), 61-79.
Open online courses are becoming more prevalent at local level and for and professional development objectives. Proper instructional design combined with use of online tools can promote learner interaction in online environments. Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, this study aimed at examining learners' interaction and their perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in an open online course offered for professional development in three Swedish universities. The course was free and open to all, attracting participants from all over the world. In order to understand the online interactions of the course, three presences of CoI were matched to three types of interaction (Moore, 1989). Data were collected through a slightly revised version of the CoI instrument and open-ended questions were added. Survey results showed that participants had high perceptions of the three presences in the course. Results also yielded significant relationships between teaching presence and cognitive presence, as well as social presence and cognitive presence. The findings suggest that deploying a set of online tools combined with appropriate pedagogical approaches in designing open online courses could foster learner interaction especially learner-content interaction and cognitive presence.
Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 22-32.
The purpose of this paper is to gain knowledge about the implementation and development of the Community of Inquiry survey. This paper describes a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal papers where the survey has been used to collect and analyze empirical data about a learning experience. A total of 103 journal papers published between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed to reveal the context, research design, and results obtained using the survey. These results specify that the Community of Inquiry survey provide results that are valid and reliable. The instrument has been used effectively to examine learning experiences and to compare different premises in many contexts. It is, however, necessary to expand the settings in order to make more general claims about the nature of online and blended learning.
Yussiff, A-S., Ahmad, W. F. W. & Mustapha, E. E. (2018). E-Collaborative Learning experience, Interdependencies of Presences and Learning Outcomes: Evidence of Mediating and Moderating Effects. International Journal of Business Information Systems, forthcoming article.
Researchers have reported mixed-findings regarding the impact of individual instruction, the class as a whole, and the use of small-group on learning outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of e-collaborative teaching and learning on students learning outcomes with the mediating and moderating effects of three presences. An experimental research design consisting of experimental and control groups were conducted. Three set of survey instruments used are the Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument, effectiveness for teamwork survey, pre-test and post-test questions. Partial-least-square approach to structural equation modelling was employed to analyse the data based on a hypothesised relationship model. The results demonstrated that the constructs in the hypothesised model are reliable and valid. In addition, findings also indicated that e-collaborative learning experience strongly predict learning outcomes indirectly through the mediating and moderating effects of the three presences. This research offers significant contributions to practice, research and theory.
Kovanović V., Joksimović S., Poquet O., Hennis T., Čukić I., de Vries P., Hatala M., Dawson S., Siemens G., & Gašević D. (2017). Exploring communities of inquiry in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, Retrieved November 28, 2017 from: https://ac-els-cdn-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/S0360131517302543/1-s2.0-S0360131517302543-main.pdf?_tid=fa8e462e-d476-11e7-a20e-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1511899493_2dd57af574398a915261fdba00ad6e5b
This study presents an evaluation of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) within the context of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The study reports the results of a reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis of the CoI survey instrument using the data of 1487 students from five MOOC courses. The findings confirmed the reliability and validity of the CoI survey instrument for the assessment of the key dimensions of the CoI model: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Although the CoI survey instrument captured the same latent constructs within the MOOC context as in the Garrison's three-factor model (Garrison et al., 1999), analyses suggested a six-factor model with additional three factors as a better fit to the data. These additional factors were 1) course organization and design (a sub-component of teaching presence), 2) group affectivity (a sub-component of social presence), and 3) resolution phase of inquiry learning (a sub-component of cognitive presence). The emergence of these additional factors revealed that the discrepancies between the dynamics of the traditional online courses and MOOCs affect the student perceptions of the three CoI presences. Based on the results of our analysis, we provide an update to the famous CoI model which captures the distinctive characteristics of the CoI model within the MOOC setting. The results of the study and their implications are further discussed.
Kozan, K. (2016). A comparative structural equation modeling investigation of the relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence. Online Learning, 20(3), 210 - 227.
The present study investigated the relationships among teaching, cognitive, and social presence through several structural equation models to see which model would better fit the data. To this end, the present study employed and compared several different structural equation models because different models could fit the data equally well. Among the models compared, the results indicated that the model with cognitive presence as a full mediator and the model with social presence as a partial mediator could achieve an equally satisfactory data fit. This conclusion may depend on the level of the presences: The present results indicated a statistically higher level of teaching presence than cognitive and social presence as well as a statistically higher level of cognitive presence compared to social presence. The results further suggested that teaching presence could either have a direct or indirect relationship with cognitive presence thereby increasing it without or with social presence as a mediator between teaching and cognitive presence. The results further suggested that teaching presence efforts spent on increasing cognitive presence can function directly, which may also promote social presence, and indirectly through social presence. Further research comparing different possible structural equation models of the relationships among the presences in different learning contexts is warranted.
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39-47. Ma, Z., Wang, J., Wang, Q, Kong, L., Wu, Y., & Yang, H. (2016). Verifying causal relationships among the presences of the Community of Inquiry framework in the Chinese context. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6), 213-230.
The purpose of this study was to verify a Chinese version of Community of Inquiry (CoI) instrument with learning presence and explore the causal relationships of the factors in the instrument. This study first examined the reliability and validity of the instrument. All four presences had acceptable levels of reliability (all Cronbach's α> .765 or higher). The confirmatory factor modeling approach was used to assess its validity. Then, the study used path analysis and regression analysis to explore the causal relationships of the presences. The key findings showed that teaching and social presences directly influenced the perceptions of learning presence. Learning presence was a partial mediating variable of interactional relationship within CoI constructs.
Maddrell, J. A., Morrison, G. R., & Watson, G. S. (2017). Presence and learning in a community of inquiry. Distance Education, Retrieved June 10, 2017 from: http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322062 Peacock, S. & Cowan, J. (2016). From presences to linked influences within the communities of inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 267-283.
Much research has identified and confirmed the core elements of the well-known Community of Inquiry Framework (CoIF): Social, Cognitive and Teaching Presence (Garrison, 2011). The overlap of these Presences, their definitions and roles, and their subsequent impact on the educational experience, has received less attention. This article is prompted by the acceptance of that omission (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010). It proposes enrichment to the Framework, by entitling the overlapping spaces uniting pairs of Presences as "Influences." These three spaces, linking pairings of Social, Teaching, and Cognitive Presences, can be labelled as "trusting," "meaning-making," and "deepening understanding." Their contribution to the educational experience is to address constructively some of the challenges of online learning, including learner isolation, limited learner experience of collaborative group work and underdeveloped higher-level abilities. For these purposes we also envisage "cognitive maps" as supporting learners to assess progress to date and identify pathways forward (Garrison & Akyol, 2013). Such maps, developed by a course team, describe the territory that learners may wish to explore, signpost possible activities, and encourage the development of cognitive and interpersonal abilities required for online learning. We hope that considering the Influences may also assist tutor conceptualisations of online community-based learning. Our proposals call on both learners and tutors to conceive of the Presences and Influences as working together, in unison, to enhance the educational experience whilst fostering deep learning. Our suggestions are presented to stimulate scholarly debate about the potential of these interwoven sections, constructively extending the Framework.
Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., Chen, N-S. & Miao, Q. (2016). Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 11-20.
This study investigated how learners' perceived online presence contributed to their learning performance while participating in a blog-based university course. Although the literature evidently highlights that there is a necessity for online presence in online courses, concrete design approaches and empirical evaluation of the impact of online presence on learning performance in blog-based courses are lacking. An empirical study was therefore conducted to understand the relationship between individuals' perceptions of online presence, in terms of teaching, social and cognitive presences, and their learning performance, in terms of subjective and objective learning outcomes. Research questions were tested and data were analyzed using regression analysis. The results indicate that online presence has a significant influence on learning performance. A subsequent analysis found that cognitive presence played the most important role in blog-based online learning performance. This study also identified a significant relationship in learning performance between students' subjective and objective learning outcomes.
Feng, X., Xie, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Scaffold Online Tutoring. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2362
Tutoring involves providing learners with a suitable level of structure and guidance to support their learning. This study reports on an exploration of how to design such structure and guidance (i.e., learning scaffolds) in the Chinese online educational context, and in so doing, answer the following two questions: (a) What scaffolding strategies are needed to design online tutoring, and (b) How should different levels of scaffolding intensity be emphasized in different stages of online tutoring in such educational contexts? A model for online tutoring using the Community of Inquiry framework was developed and implemented in this study. It focused attention on both the critical role of the tutor in online learning and the importance of scaffolding in online tutoring. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect data, including questionnaires, interviews, and content analysis. In considering the variation of scaffolding throughout the online course, results showed that: (a) As long as a high degree of social presence is established in the initial phase, scaffolds for social presence can be withdrawn gradually throughout the course; (b) High-intensity teaching presence is much more important in the mid-phase of the course than in other phases; (c) "Discourse facilitation" should be emphasized for teaching presence in the mid-phase, while "direct instruction" scaffolding is needed in the last phase; and (d) The greatest need for scaffolding of cognitive presence occurs in the final phase of the course.
Chen, B., deNoyelles, A., Zydney, J., & Patton, K. (2017). Creating a Community of Inquiry in large-enrollment online courses: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols within online discussions. Online Learning, 21(1), 165-188.
It can be difficult to foster focused and effective communication in online discussions within large classes. Implementing protocols is a strategy that may help students communicate more effectively, facilitate their learning process, and improve the quality of their work within online discussions. In this exploratory research study, a protocol was developed and improved over two iterations in a very large undergraduate video-streaming business course (N1=412; N2=450). The discussion instructions were consolidated and adjusted, and design elements such as a grading rubric, exemplary student samples, and due date reminders were added in the second iteration. There were higher perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presences in the second iteration, as well as significantly more group cognition within the discussion measured through a Community of Inquiry coding template. Findings suggest that protocols are a potentially useful strategy to manage online discussions in large classes.
Olpak, Y. Z., Yağci, M. & Başarmak, U. (2016). Determination of perception of community of inquiry. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(12), 1085-1092. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/ERR/article-full-text-pdf/8AAF85459015 Peacock, S. & Cowan, J. (2016). From presences to linked influences within the communities of inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 267-283. Kozan, K. (2016). A comparative structural equation modeling investigation of the relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence. Online Learning, 20(3), 210 - 227
Community of inquiry (CoI) is the conceptual framework which describes critical prerequisite factors for deep and meaningful learning in online learning environments. Based on the literature concerning the CoI framework, it can be observed that studies in which three factors in the model (cognitive, social and teaching presence) were investigated have been increased as scales to determine perception towards CoI have been developed, which thus made it possible to work on relatively larger sampling groups effectively and to increase generalizability of findings. In this context, within the scope of the present research, by investigating different data collection tools developed by different researchers, studies aiming to determine CoI perception by means of a scale were investigated in detail. Research results reveals that CoI survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) has been widely accepted in the literature; and that the instrument has been adapted to number of languages such as Turkish, Korean and Arabic; and employed in diverse disciplines such as education, business and health care.

Kozan, K. (2016). The incremental predictive validity of teaching, cognitive and social presence on cognitive load. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 11-19. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751616300227
Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., Chen, N-S. & Miao, Q. (2016). Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 11-20. Beran, T., Drefs, M., Kaba, A., Al Baz, N., & Al Harbi, N. (2015). Conformity of responses among graduate students in an online environment. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 63-69.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive validity of teaching, cognitive and social presence from a cognitive load perspective when perceived learning satisfaction was under control. To serve this purpose, this study included hierarchical multiple regression analyses run on data collected in a fully online graduate program. The results indicated that the presences could statistically significantly predict intrinsic, extraneous, and total loads with a small effect size. Individually, cognitive presence turned out to be the best predictor of intrinsic load while teaching presence was the best predictor of extraneous and total loads. Even though social presence was not a best predictor on its own, it contributed to the presences prediction of cognitive load as a group. As a result, all these findings pointed to a small-size predictive power of the presences on cognitive load thereby providing evidence for their incremental predictive validity and the importance of perceived learning satisfaction.

Parker, J., & Herrington, J. (2015). Setting the climate in an authentic online community of learning. Australia Association for Research in Education Conference, 1-12. http://www.aare.edu.au/publications-database.php/9787/setting-the-climate-in-an-authentic-online-community-of-learning
Szeto, E. (2015). Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers & Education, 81, 191-201.
The growth of online learning and the demand for quality education has prompted universities to investigate innovative approaches for providing students with a more interactive, engaging and authentic learning experience. Frameworks such as Garrison, Anderson and Archer's (2001) community of inquiry (CoI) model have been widely used in the design of learning tasks and communities of learning to address this challenge. In this paper, the key elements of the CoI model are explained-the cognitive, social and teaching aspects-together with a brief look at the intersecting areas of these elements. Of particular interest in this paper was the intersection of social and teaching presence, because of its capacity to contribute to setting climate in an online learning environment. A systematic analysis of recent studies focusing on key elements of the CoI model is reported, and characteristics for setting the climate in an online environment to assist the development of a community of inquiry are identified, together with guidelines to assist with the implementation. Finally, an authentic online professional development course for higher education professionals is described to illustrate the guidelines in practice.

Little research has been conducted to integrate teaching, social and cognitive presences as three instructional components of an instructional approach to contextualizing blended synchronous learning and teaching experiences. This qualitative case study reports the use of a community of inquiry instructional approach to exploring the effects of the presences on shaping the experiences of online and face-to-face students and their instructor. The students and instructor interviews, video recordings and class observations over an entire engineering drawing course were collected for data analysis with the use of a coding scheme derived from the presences. The findings revealed that attainment of the intended learning outcomes relied more on the teaching presence than on the social and cognitive presences of the approach. The instructor's performance could bring about a leadership role of teaching presence as being more important than the social and cognitive presences in the engineering course. However, the instructional effects of the teaching, social and cognitive presences contributing to the blended synchronous learning and teaching mode were situational and context specific. Implications for further research are discussed.

Yu, T., & Richardson, J. C. (2015). Examining reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Community of Inquiry instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45-52.
Clarke, L. W., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging Beneath the Surface: Analyzing the Complexity of Instructors' Participation in Asynchronous Discussion. Online Learning-Formerly The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(3).
This study examines the reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) instrument for online learning. The measurement consists of 34 items to evaluate social, teaching, and cognitive presence and was translated from English into Korean for this study. A Cyber University in Seoul, Korea was selected for this study. Data were randomly split into two groups. Three factor-structures of the CoI framework explained 63.82% of the variance in the pattern of relationships among the items using the first split-half sample. All three presences had high reliabilities (all Cronbach's α > .913 or higher). The three-factor structure of the CoI framework with social, teaching, and cognitive presences confirms the validity of the Korean version of the CoI measurement by deleting two items which cross-loaded on multiple factors. Confirmatory factor modeling approach was used to assess the validity of the Korean version using the remaining half sample.

This study is situated at the nexus of contradictory research about the role of the instructor in asynchronous discussions. The goal of this descriptive study was to provide a deeper analysis of instructor comments and participation in these discussions. By developing an analytical tool based on the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001) we categorized the types of comments made by instructors as well as identified more complex profiles of instructor interaction. In addition, we looked at student and instructor data around instructor participation in these discussions. We found that instructors relied more heavily on social codes and were less likely to employ cognitive codes, that there was a variance in the types of discursive interactions as indicated by different discursive profiles, and that it is difficult for instructors to find the right balance of participation in asynchronous discussions. We believe engaging in this type of analysis can help us become more effective online instructors and provide a good next step for some larger relationship studies to further understand how the instructors' comments do impact student discussion.

Pellas, N., Peroutseas, E., & Kazanidis, I. (2013). Virtual communities of inquiry (VCoI) for learning basic algorithmic structures with open simulator and Scratch4OS: a case study from the secondary education in Greece. In Proceedings of the 6th Balkan conference in informatics (pp. 187-194). ACM.
Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2014). The impact of computer self-efficacy, situational interest and academic self-concept in virtual communities of inquiry during the distance learning procedures through Second Life. World Wide Web, 1-28.
The rapid penetration of "open source" virtual worlds (VWs) on the configuration and development of three-dimensional (3D) multi-user virtual platforms, in conjunction with interfaces of two-dimensional (2D) educational environments to learn novice users basic algorithmic structures were currently the central axis that exposed for investigation in our study. Notwithstanding the radical restructuring of instructional formats with VWs, like Open Simulator (Open Sim); however the disambiguation of students' presence indicators which are positively correlated to their meaningful engagement in Computer Science courses in a virtual community of inquiry (VCoI) is still lacking. In fact, for the requirements of these courses we had configured specific collaborative virtual areas in order to be explored and utilized from students a variety of non-uniform geometric solids from Open Sim and to be constructed a 3D (assembled) "mind trap" puzzle. Alongside, each piece of this puzzle was programmed according to a specific serial sequence with Scratch for Open Sim (Scratch4OS). The current case study seeks to present firstly a valuable framework for the implementation of the teaching and learning process in a VW, and subsequently the results from linear correlations between the cognitive, social and teaching presence of a VCoI from eighty-one (81) students of the Greek Secondary Education. The study findings indicated that the social presence (communication and cohesiveness of a group) don't only have a direct correlation with the cognitive presence (learning process for the construction of knowledge), but also has a positive association with the teaching presence (organization, planning and guidance of learning activities in the 3D space), and compulsory reinforced both of them. The added value of this study highlights the fundamental issues of the cooperation, socialization, retention and attendance rates between members of a VCoI which avouch multiple dimensions encircle or empower students' managerial and learning responsibilities based on the affordances that a 3D technology-enhanced environment can replicate.

The current study investigates a case where the online learning procedure in three dimensional (3D) technologically-advanced environments of the Web 2.0 is growing at an exponential rate. In this occasion it is highly imperative need to understand students' interactions in this innovative mode of e-Education that requires from educators and scholars not only analysis conceptually, but also an empirically-driven optimization. The community of inquiry (CoI) model (or framework) consists to be as one of the most prominent multi-dimensional constructs that it is widely used to represent several distinct dimensions of social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence, as a unique and fundamental theoretical concept to measure students' interactions in contemporary electronic environments. Although, the effectiveness of these multi-dimensional constructs creates a dilemma to researchers who want the breadth and comprehensiveness of this model for the precision and clarity of users' (instructors and students) dimensions with other motivational and learning variables. To address this dilemma, the current empirical study presents statistical analyses from the "trinity" constructs of the CoI model by utilizing correlation and hierarchical regression analyses with two fundamental motivational (computer self-efficacy and situational interest) and another one learning (academic self-concept) variables. This study goes one step further and introduces the conspicuously indisputable intervention of a virtual (V) CoI and its utilization in multi-user virtual worlds, like Second Life (SL). The study findings of one hundred thirty-five (135) participants who enrolled in several online sessions unveiled that the situational interest was the only significant predictor of social presence. The computer self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of the CoI model, while on the other hand academic self-concept was a significant predictor in a revamped attempt to validate the strong relationship among constructs within it. According to the aforementioned reasons, it can be surmised that the successful combination of the VCoI in Second Life, surpassing irrefutable and inherent shortcomings to a future-driven sustainable use and growth.

Zydney, J.M., deNoyelles, A., Seo, K. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols on interactions within asynchronous discussions. *Computers & Education, 58*(1)*, *77-87.
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (n.d.). Interrelationships between and among Social, Teaching and Cognitive Presence. The Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.007
The purpose of our research was to examine the influence of an online protocol on asynchronous discussions. A mixed-methods study compared two online graduate classes: one that used a protocol and one that did not use a protocol for the same discussion about a complex reading. Analysis of the data revealed that the online protocol more evenly distributed the presence of cognitive, social, and teaching elements necessary to create and sustain an online community of inquiry. Use of the protocol also promoted more shared group cognition and more student ownership of the discussion and empowered students to facilitate themselves, helping to reduce the instructor workload. These findings may enable educators to provide more dynamic interaction and richer learning experiences in asynchronous online environments.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between and among teaching, social and cognitive presences. To this end, Spearman`s rank correlation and partial correlation analyses were employed. The results referred to: (a) Positive large bivariate correlational relationships between presence types; (b) The dependence of these pair-wise relationships on the third presence to a certain extent. For instance, it was found that cognitive presence may have a strong effect on the relationship between teaching presence and social presence since the relationship between teaching presence and social presence may disappear when cognitive presence is controlled for. On the other hand, results also suggested that the relationship between cognitive presence and social presence, and the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence may be independent of the effect of the other third presence largely.
Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, Juenethia, L. (2013). Community of Inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/12.1.1.pdf
This study analyses the educational support offered through information and communication technology during formative assessment in two different cases in higher education. We analysed one blended and one virtual case from two different universities. The study aimed at identifying specific patterns of educational support intended to foster two interaction processes: (1) the promotion of greater autonomy in the students and (2) the construction of more appropriate meanings by them. The analysis showed that these two processes were achieved with different attainment levels in each of the two study cases. Specific patterns of support mediated by technology were found underlying these different results. This led us to identify 'suitable' and 'undesirable' patterns of support in e-assessment practices.

Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, the author conducted a mixed method research study to examine the existence of the three CoI elements in a graduate-level educational technology online course. The author also looked at student perceptions and preference for community in online learning. High mean scores on the CoI showed that all three elements of CoI were more than adequately addressed in the course, particularly teaching presence. Lowest scores indicated that some students were uncomfortable expressing themselves in an online environment and felt a lack of freedom to disagree with class members. Demographic data showed that students preferred a sense of community but were not so fond of collaborative assignments that are essential for building the community they desire. Since collaborative assignments demand a greater degree of communication and ability to bring problems to an adequate resolution, it is plausible that inhibitions in expressing oneself may become more pronounced when more collaboration is required.

A multitude of factors influence interpersonal interaction between students and instructors in an online course. This study examines perceptions of six experienced online instructors to determine factors they believe increase interaction among their students and between the students and instructor of online courses. The end result is an inventory of strategies that can be used by novice and experienced online instructors alike to impact interpersonal interaction in online courses. Factors include group work, course environment, model use, community, discussion question type and assessment, feedback type and medium, immediacy behaviors, discourse guidelines, and instructor participation.

This study compares dialogic behavior in asynchronous course forums from blended learning environments with non-mandatory student participation at a campus-based college and at a distance education, Open University. The goal is to document similarities and differences in students' and instructors' dialogic behavior that occur in two similar instructional resources used in two dissimilar learning environments. Quantitative content analysis, derived from the "Community of Inquiry" model, was performed on a year-long course forum from the college. These data were compared with composite data obtained previously from 50 Open University course forums. Findings showed that the dialogic behavior in the college forum differed greatly from the dialogic behavior exhibited in distance education forums. Specifically, the frequencies of "social presence", "teaching presence" and "cognitive presence" in the forums differed significantly. However, high frequencies of social presence coupled with low frequencies of cognitive presence at both institutions raise doubts regarding the popular assumption that deep and meaningful learning occurs in asynchronous course forums.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore community college student perceptions of online learning within the theoretical construct of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model, which describes the manner in which the elements of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence interact to create an educational experience. An online questionnaire, interviews, and artifact reviews were employed in the study. Interpretive analysis was utilized to identify themes and provide insights into student perceptions of satisfaction and success with online learning. The findings of the study revealed aspects of community college student perceptions about online courses, related these perceptions to the social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence components of the Community of Inquiry model, and provided examples of successful instructional design and course facilitation techniques utilized in the online courses. The study findings provided insights about student perceptions related to communication and interaction, isolation, preferred course activities, and the positive impact of prompt and helpful instructor feedback. Recommendations for practical applications by instructional designers and instructors are provided.

Learners' satisfaction and persistence are considered critical success factors in online universities where all of the teaching and learning activities are carried out online. This study aims to investigate the structural relationships among perceived level of presence, perceived usefulness and ease of use of the online learning tools, learner satisfaction and persistence in an online university located in South Korea. The specific predictors were teaching presence, social presence, cognitive presence, and perceived usefulness and ease of use. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to provide cause-and-effect inferences. The study participants were 709 learners who enrolled in a Korean online university in 2009 and responded to online surveys. The results indicated that teaching presence, cognitive presence, and perceived usefulness and ease of use were significant predictors of learner satisfaction, which was found to be a significant mediator of predictors and persistence. The findings provided substantial implications for designing and implementing teaching and learning strategies in online university environments.

In this special issue, I bring together two studies to provide a comprehensive overview on diverse and interactive instructional methods aimed to facilitate higher levels of learning. One study explored the effects of group interaction using different instructional strategies focusing on the learning process using the Community of Inquiry framework. The other study investigated the effects of group interaction using different instructional strategies focusing on learning products using the SOLO taxonomy. The outcomes of both studies were consistent in revealing that certain kinds of instructional strategies have more effective interactions, resulting in facilitating higher levels of learning.

Though online enrollments continue to accelerate at a rapid pace, there is significant concern over student retention. With drop rates significantly higher than in face-to-face classes it is imperative that online providers develop an understanding of factors that lead students to disenroll. This study utilizes a data mining approach to examine course-level disenrollment through the lens of student satisfaction with the projection of Teaching, Social and Cognitive Presence. In comparing the highest and lowest disenrollment quartiles of all courses at American Public University the value of effective Instructional Design and Organization, and initiation of the Triggering Event phase of Cognitive Presence were found to be significant predictors of student satisfaction in the lowest disenrollment quartile. For the highest disenrollment quartile, the lack of follow-through vis-à-vis Facilitation of Discourse and Cognitive Integration were found to be negative predictors of student satisfaction
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students, Computers & Education, 55(2), 808-820.
Asynchronous discussion technologies offer the advantage of providing time for reflection essential for higher order cognitive thinking. In the context of a ten-week graphic design foundations course in the Digital Graphic Design program at Vancouver Community College, this advantage provides an avenue for advancing critical discussion of design work. Garrison, Anderson and Archer's (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI) model is applied in tandem with the design process to develop a blended approach to the traditional critique. The appropriate alignment of curriculum and faculty and student interactions to the environments best suited is determined. Guiding principles and learning objectives and tasks are developed to support cognitive, social and teaching presences essential to foster critical discourse in asynchronous discussion environments.
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A. Antonovsky, A., Blau, I. & Mansur, A. (2010). The Relationship between Academic Discipline and Dialogic Behavior in Open University Course Forums. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2).
This study investigated the effect of time on the development of a community of inquiry by examining an online course offered over two different time periods. The study was guided by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). The focus was on a graduate level education course, the topic of which was blended learning. The course was given by the same instructor in a 13 week fall semester and a 6 week spring term. Transcript analysis of weekly online discussions and the CoI Survey were used to explore the differences between the short-term and long-term version of this course in terms of each measure of CoI presence (social, teaching and cognitive presence). The findings showed differences between the short-term and long-term version of this course in terms of the development of each presence and students' perceptions.
Jézégou, A. (2010). Community of Inquiry in E-learning: A Critical Analysis of the Garrison and Anderson Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(3).
Drawing on the Community of Inquiry model (), this mixed-method case study examined the nature and interactions of teaching, cognitive, and social presence created by online instructors and adult students in diverse course contexts. The study results indicated online instructional design and teaching elements that are crucial prerequisites for a successful online higher educational experience for adult students. The study also informed e-learning designers on the relations between online teaching, cognitive, and social presence.
Garrison, D.R. Cleveland-Innes, M. & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among cognitive, social and teaching presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36.
The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between disciplinary difference (exact and natural sciences versus humanities) and the dialogic behavior that occurred in Open University course forums. Dialogic behavior was measured in terms of students' and instructors' active participation in the forum (posting a message) as well as amounts and proportions of "teaching presence", "cognitive presence", and "social presence". We found that active participation in the science forums was much higher than in the humanities forums. We also found a ratio among the three presences that was constant across different academic disciplines, as well as across different group sizes and course types.
Arbaugh, B., Bangert, A, & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010) Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2).
This article is based on a constructively critical analysis of the model of community of inquiry developed by Garrison and Anderson (2003) as part of a research conducted in the area of e-learning. The authors claim that certain collaborative interactions create "distant presence" fostering the emergence of a community of inquiry which has a positive influence on individual and collective learning. More specifically, the article points out that until now, the model's theoretical foundations had not been made explicit and provides important insights concerning these epistemological considerations. It also suggests a number of theoretical perspectives which strengthen the authors' presentation of the conceptual anchorings of the model. Thus the major contribution of this article is to show the potential of Garrison and Anderson's model for the research in the field of e-learning.

The causal relationships among the three presences in the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework are explored and tested in this paper. The CoI framework has been used extensively in the research on and the practice of online and blended learning. With the development of a survey instrument based on the CoI framework, it is possible to test causal relationships among CoI presences. The research reported here tested two hypotheses: 1) that teaching and social presence have a significant perceived influence on cognitive presence, and 2) that teaching presence is perceived to influence social presence. The results of this study confirm the factor structure of the CoI survey and the causal relationships among the presences predicted by the CoI framework. These results point to the key role of teaching presence in establishing and sustaining a community of inquiry. Further research is called for to explore the dynamic relationships among the presences across disciplines and institutions as well as understand the existence and role of the specific sub-elements (categories) of each presence in the development of a community of inquiry.

This paper integrates the emerging literatures of empirical research on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework and disciplinary effects in online teaching and learning by examining the disciplinary differences in perceptions of social, teaching, and cognitive presence of over 1,500 students in seven disciplines at two U.S. institutions. Our results found significant disciplinary differences, particularly regarding cognitive presence, in soft, applied disciplines relative to other disciplines. These initial results suggest the possibility that the CoI framework may be more applicable to applied disciplines than pure disciplines. Our findings suggest interesting opportunities for future researchers to consider how the individual elements of the CoI framework may influence and be influenced by academic disciplines and how the framework may need to be refined or modified to explain effective course conduct in pure disciplines.
Akyol , Z. & Garrison, D.R. (2009). Community of Inquiry in Adult Online Learning: Collaborative-Constructivist Approaches. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Adult Learning in the Digital Age: Perspectives on Online Technologies and Outcomes (Ch.VI). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
This chapter presents a theoretical model of online learning, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, which is grounded in John Dewey's progressive understanding of education. The CoI framework is a process model of online learning which views the online educational experience as arising from the interaction of three presences - social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Each of these three elements in the CoI framework are described and related to Dewey's work, and research findings and issues concerning them reviewed. The development of a common CoI survey measure that promises to address some of these issues is described and discussed. The chapter concludes with emerging findings from new studies which use the CoI survey, directions for future research, and practical uses of the CoI framework.

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework has become a prominent model of teaching and learning in online and blended learning environments. Considerable research has been conducted which employs the framework with promising results, resulting in wide use to inform the practice of online and blended teaching and learning. For the CoI model to continue to grow and evolve, constructive critiques and debates are extremely beneficial, in so much as they identify potential problems and weaknesses in the model or its application as well as provide direction for further research. In this context, the CoI framework was recently reviewed and critiqued by Rourke and Kanuka in their JDE article entitled "Learning in Communities of Inquiry: A Review of the Literature."
This paper is a response to this article and focuses on two main issues. The first issue is the focus of the review and critique on learning outcomes. The second issue concerns the representation, comprehensiveness, and methodology of the review.
Garrison, D.R. & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). An empirical verification of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 11(1), 73-85.
The adult education literature emphasizes community building in order to increase effectiveness and success of online teaching and learning. In this chapter the Community of Inquiry Framework that was developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) has been introduced as a promising theory for adult learning in online environments. The chapter discusses the potential of the CoI framework to create effective adult online learning communities by utilizing the research findings from an online course. Overall, the research findings showed that students had positive attitudes toward the community developed in the course and that their perception of constituting elements of the community of inquiry was significantly related to perceived learning and satisfaction.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D.R. & Kinsel, E. (2007). Role Adjustment for Learners in an Online Community of Inquiry: Identifying the Challenges of Incoming Online Learners. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(1), 1-16.
The purpose of this study was to explore the dynamics of an online educational experience through the lens of the Community of Inquiry framework. Transcript analysis of online discussion postings and the Community of Inquiry survey were applied in order to understand the progression and integration of each of the Community of Inquiry presences. The results indicated significant change in teaching and social presence categories over time. Moreover, survey results yielded significant relationships among teaching presence, cognitive presence and social presence, and students' perceived learning and satisfaction in the course. The findings have important implications theoretically in terms of confirming the framework and practically by identifying the dynamics of each of the presences and their association with perceived learning and satisfaction.
Shea, P.J. (2006). A study of students' sense of community in online learning environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 10(1), 35-44.
Since its publication in The Internet and Higher Education, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's [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), 87-105.] community of inquiry (CoI) framework has generated substantial interest among online learning researchers. This literature review examines recent research pertaining to the overall framework as well as to specific studies on social, teaching, and cognitive presence. We then use the findings from this literature to identify potential future directions for research. Some of these research directions include the need for more quantitatively-oriented studies, the need for more cross-disciplinary studies, and the opportunities for identifying factors that moderate and/or extend the relationship between the framework's components and online course outcomes.
Redmond, P. & Lock, J.V. (2006). A flexible Framework for online collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 267 - 276.
The purpose of this paper is to report on the results of a study that examines whether the CoI dimensions of social, teaching and cognitive presence distinctively exist in e-learning environments. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, I will briefly review recent studies on the dimensions of this framework: social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Second, I discuss the development of the sample of MBA students in online courses over a two-year period at a Midwestern U.S. university and the items used to measure the CoI dimensions. Next, I will describe the results of an exploratory factor analysis, including an interpretation of the emerging factors. Finally, I will discuss how these findings relate to conclusions presented in Garrison's review of recent research related to the CoI [10] and present some possible directions for future research.
Conrad, D. (2005). Building and Maintaining Community in Cohort-Based Online Learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-20.
This study outlines the process of adjustment learners experience when first participating in an online environment. Findings from a pilot study of adjustment to online learning environments validate differences found in three presences in an online community of inquiry. Using pre- and post-questionnaires, students enrolled in entry-level courses in two graduate degree programs at Athabasca University, Canada, describe their adjustment to online learning. Responses were analyzed in relation to the elements of cognitive, social, and teaching presence, defined by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) as core dimensions of student role requirements in an online community of inquiry. In each of these presences, five areas of adjustment characterize the move toward competence in online learning: interaction, self-identity, instructor role, course design, and technology. Student comments provide understanding of the experience of first time online learners, including the challenges, interventions, and resolutions that present themselves as unique incidents. Recommendations for the support and facilitation of adjustment are made.
Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Fung, T. (2004). Student Role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(2), 61 - 74.
This paper looks first at some of the often unspoken epistemological, philosophical, and theoretical assumptions that are foundational to student-centered, interactive online pedagogical models. It is argued that these foundational assumptions point to the importance of learning community in the effectiveness of online learning environments. Next, a recent study of 2314 online students across thirty-two college campuses is presented. This study reports on learners' sense of community and it is concluded through factor and regression analysis that elements of the Community of Inquiry model [1]-specifically learners' recognition of effective "directed facilitation" and effective instructional design and organization on the part of their instructor contributes to their sense of shared purpose, trust, connectedness, and learning-core elements of a community of learners. Gender also appears to play a small role in students' sense of learning community with female students reporting higher levels than their male classmates. Implications for online learning environments design are discussed.

This paper presents a framework for online collaborative learning, also known as telecollaboration. At the centre of this flexible framework are online collaborative educational experiences where knowledge creation and knowledge in action are the nexus of social, teaching and cognitive presence based on the Community of Inquiry model of Garrison, Anderson and Archers [Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (1999). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105]. The framework provided should guide educators as they design, develop and implement authentic educational experiences within local, national or international settings in partnership with other educational stakeholders.

In a multi-year study of a group of learners engaged in online graduate study, I explored the development of learners' sense of community using a variety of data-gathering instruments. An initial questionnaire established learners' pre-program perceptions of online learning and the notion of community; subsequent questionnaires, interviews, and a focus group monitored developments in learners' relationships with each other and in their sense of community. The longitudinal nature of this study afforded a rich and sustained investigation into the nature of community as it was experienced by one group of learners. Findings revealed that learners' perceptions of community and online learning shifted away from technical considerations and toward affective considerations; that learners took responsibility, and credit, for the creation and maintenance of their sense of community; and that the existence of robust community did not deflect learners from valuing face-to-face contact with cohort members.

The purpose of this study is to validate an instrument to study role adjustment of students new to an online community of inquiry. The community of inquiry conceptual model for online learning was used to shape this research and identify the core elements and conditions associated with role adjustment to online learning (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2000). Through a factor analytic process it is shown that the instrument did reflect the theoretical model. It was also useful in refining the items for the questionnaire. The instrument is for use in future research designed to measure and understand student role adjustment in online learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Garrison's CoI Foundational Research Papers: Garrison CoI Foundational References (.doc) Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020, March 24). 20 Years of the Community of Inquiry Framework. TechTrends. The Community of Inquiry framework is a collaborative-constructivist process model that describes the essential elements of a successful online higher education learning experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4.4.1 What is online collaborative learning?

The concurrence of both constructivist approaches to learning and the development of the Internet has led to the development of a particular form of constructivist teaching, originally called computer-mediated communication (CMC), or networked learning, but which has been developed into what Harasim (2012) now calls online collaborative learning theory (OCL). She describes OCL as follows (p. 90):

OCL theory provides a model of learning in which students are encouraged and supported to work together to create knowledge: to invent, to explore ways to innovate, and, by so doing, to seek the conceptual knowledge needed to solve problems rather than recite what they think is the right answer. While OCL theory does encourage the learner to be active and engaged, this is not considered to be sufficient for learning or knowledge construction......In the OCL theory, the teacher plays a key role not as a fellow-learner, but as the link to the knowledge community, or state of the art in that discipline. Learning is defined as conceptual change and is key to building knowledge. Learning activity needs to be informed and guided by the norms of the discipline and a discourse process that emphasises conceptual learning and builds knowledge.

OCL builds on and integrates theories of cognitive development that focus on conversational learning (Pask, 1975), conditions for deep learning (Marton and Saljø, 1997; Entwistle, 2000), development of academic knowledge (Laurillard, 2001), and knowledge construction (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006).

From the very early days of online learning, some instructors have focused heavily on the communication affordances of the Internet (see for instance, Hiltz and Turoff, 1978). They have based their teaching on the concept of knowledge construction, the gradual building of knowledge mainly through asynchronous online discussion among students and between students and an instructor.

Online discussion forums go back to the 1970s, but really took off as a result of a combination of the invention of the WorldWide Web in the 1990s, high speed Internet access, and the development of learning management systems, most of which now include an area for online discussions. These online discussion forums have some differences though with classroom seminars:

first, they are text based, not oral;

second, they are asynchronous: participants can log in at any time, and from anywhere with an Internet connection;

third, many discussion forums allow for 'threaded' connections, enabling a response to be attached to the particular comment which prompted the response, rather than just displayed in chronological order. This allows for dynamic sub-topics to be developed, with sometimes more than ten responses within a single thread of discussion. This enables participants to follow multiple discussion topics over a period of time.

4.4.2 Core design principles of OCL

Harasim emphasises the importance of three key phases of knowledge construction through discourse:

idea generating: this is literally brainstorming, to collect the divergent thinking within a group;

idea organising: this is where learners compare, analyse and categorise the different ideas previously generated, again through discussion and argument;

intellectual convergence: the aim here is to reach a level of intellectual synthesis, understanding and consensus (including agreeing to disagree), usually through the joint construction of some artefact or piece of work, such as an essay or assignment.

This results in what Harasim calls a Final Position, although in reality the position is never final because for a learner, once started, the process of generating, organising and converging on ideas continues at an ever deeper or more advanced level. The role of the teacher or instructor in this process is seen as critical, not only in facilitating the process and providing appropriate resources and learner activities that encourage this kind of learning, but also, as a representative of a knowledge community or subject domain, in ensuring that the core concepts, practices, standards and principles of the subject domain are fully integrated into the learning cycle.

Harasim provides the following diagram to capture this process:

Another important factor is that in the OCL model, discussion forums are not an addition or supplement to core teaching materials, such as textbooks, recorded lectures, or text in an LMS, but are the core component of the teaching. Textbooks, readings and other resources are chosen to support the discussion, not the other way round. This is a key design principle, and explains why often instructors or tutors complain, in more 'traditional' online courses, that students don't participate in discussions. Often this is because where online discussions are secondary to more didactic teaching, or are not deliberately designed and managed to lead to knowledge construction, students see the discussions as optional or extra work, because they have no direct impact on grades or assessment. It is also a reason why awarding grades for participation in discussion forums misses the point. It is not the extrinsic activity that counts, but the intrinsic value of the discussion, that matters (see, for instance, Brindley, Walti and Blashke, 2009). Thus although instructors using an OCL approach may use learning management systems for convenience, they are used differently from courses where traditional didactic teaching is moved online.

4.4.3 Community of Inquiry

The Community of Inquiry Model (CoI) is somewhat similar to the OCL model. As defined by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000)

An educational community of inquiry is a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding.

Garrison, Anderson and Archer argue that there are three essential elements of a community of inquiry:

social presence " is the ability of participants to 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."

teaching presence is "the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes"

cognitive presence "is the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse".

However, CoI is more of a theory than a model, since it does not indicate what activities or conditions are needed to create these three 'presences'. The two models (OCL and CoI) are also more complementary rather than competing.

4.4.5 Developing meaningful online discussion

Since the publication of the original CoI paper in 2000, there have been a number of studies that have identified the importance of these 'presences' within especially online learning (click here for a wide selection). Although there has been a wide range of researchers and educators engaged in the area of online collaborative learning and communities of inquiry, there is a high degree of convergence and agreement about successful strategies and design principles. For academic and conceptual development, discussions need to be well organized by the teacher, and the teacher needs to provide the necessary support to enable the development of ideas and the construction of new knowledge for the students.

Partly as a result of this research, and partly as the result of experienced online instructors who have not necessarily been influenced by either the OCL or the Community of Inquiry literature, several other design principles have been associated with successful (online) discussion, such as:

appropriate technology (for example, software that allows for threaded discussions);

clear guidelines on student online behaviour, such as written codes of conduct for participating in discussions, and ensuring that they are enforced;

student orientation and preparation, including technology orientation and explaining the purpose of discussion;

clear goals for the discussions that are understood by the students, such as: 'to explore gender and class issues in selected novels' or 'to compare and evaluate alternative methods of coding';

choice of appropriate topics, that complement and expand issues in the study materials, and are relevant to answering assessment questions;

setting an appropriate 'tone' or requirements for discussion (for example, respectful disagreement, evidence-based arguments);

defining clearly learner roles and expectations, such as 'you should log in at least once a week to each discussion topic and make at least one substantive contribution to each topic each week';

monitoring the participation of individual learners, and responding accordingly, by providing the appropriate scaffolding or support, such as comments that help students develop their thinking around the topics, referring them back to study materials if necessary, or explaining issues when students seem to be confused or misinformed;

regular, ongoing instructor 'presence', such as monitoring the discussions to prevent them getting off topic or too personal, and providing encouragement for those that are making real contributions to the discussion, heading off those that are trying to hog or dominate the discussions, and tracking those not participating, and helping them to participate;

ensuring strong articulation between discussion topics and assessment.

These issues are discussed in more depth by Salmon (2000); Bates and Poole (2003); and Paloff and Pratt (2005; 2007).

4.4.6 Cultural and epistemological issues

Students come to the educational experience with different expectations and backgrounds. As a result there are often major cultural differences in students with regard to participating in discussion-based collaborative learning that in the end reflect deep differences with regard to traditions of learning and teaching. Thus teachers need to be aware that there are likely to be students in any class who may be struggling with language, cultural or epistemological issues, but in online classes, where students can come from anywhere, this is a particularly important issue.

In many countries, there is a strong tradition of the authoritarian role of the teacher and the transmission of information from the teacher to the student. In some cultures, it would be considered disrespectful to challenge or criticize the views of teachers or even other students. In an authoritarian, teacher-based culture, the views of other students may be considered irrelevant or unimportant. Other cultures have a strong oral tradition, or one based on story-telling, rather than on direct instruction.

Online environments then can present real challenges to students when a constructivist approach to the design of online learning activities is adopted. This may mean taking specific steps to help students who are unfamiliar with a constructivist approach to learning, such as sending drafts to the instructor by e-mail for approval before posting a 'class' contribution. For a fuller discussion of cross-cultural issues in online learning, see Jung and Gunawardena (2014) and the journal Distance Education, Vol. 22, No. 1 (2001), the whole edition of which is devoted to papers on this topic.

4.4.7 Strengths and weaknesses of online collaborative learning

This approach to the use of technology for teaching is very different from the more objectivist approaches found in computer-assisted learning, teaching machines, and artificial intelligence applications to education, which primarily aim to use computing to replace at least some of the activities traditionally done by human teachers. With online collaborative learning, the aim is not to replace the teacher, but to use the technology primarily to increase and improve communication between teacher and learners, with a particular approach to the development of learning based on knowledge construction assisted and developed through social discourse. This social discourse furthermore is not random, but managed in such a way as to 'scaffold' learning:

by assisting with the construction of knowledge in ways that are guided by the instructor;

that reflect the norms or values of the discipline;

that also respect or take into consideration the prior knowledge within the discipline.

Thus there are two main strengths of this model:

when applied appropriately, online collaborative learning can lead to deep, academic learning, or transformative learning, as well as, if not better than, discussion in campus-based classrooms. The asynchronous and recorded 'affordances' of online learning more than compensate for the lack of physical cues and other aspects of face-to-face discussion;

online collaborative learning as a result can also directly support the development of a range of high level intellectual skills, such as critical thinking, analytical thinking, synthesis, and evaluation, which are key requirements for learners in a digital age.

There are though some limitations:

it does not scale easily, requiring highly knowledgeable and skilled instructors, and a limited number of learners;

it is more likely to accommodate to the epistemological positions of faculty and instructors in humanities, social sciences, education and some areas of business studies and health and conversely it is likely to be less accommodating to the epistemological positions of faculty in science, computer science and engineering. However, if combined with a problem-based or inquiry-based approach, it might have acceptance even in some of these subject domains.

4.4.8 Summary

Many of the strengths and challenges of collaborative learning apply both in face-to-face or online learning contexts. It could be argued that there is no or little difference between online collaborative learning and well-conducted traditional classroom, discussion-based teaching. Once again, we see that the mode of delivery is less important than the design model, which can work well in both contexts. Indeed, it is possible to conduct either model synchronously or asynchronously, at a distance or face-to-face.

However, there is enough evidence that collaborative learning can be done just as well online, which is important, given the need for more flexible models of delivery to meet the needs of a more diverse student body in a digital age. Also, the necessary conditions for success in teaching this way are now well known, even though they are not always universally applied.

Activity 4.4: Evaluating online collaborative learning models

1. Can you see the differences between 'Open Collaborative Learning' (OCL) and 'Communities of Inquiry'? Or are they really the same model with different names?

2. Do you agree that either of these models can be applied just as successfully online or face-to-face?

3. Do you see other strengths or weaknesses with these models?

4. Is this common sense dressed up as theory?

5. Does it make sense to apply either of these models to courses in the quantitative sciences such as physics or engineering? If so, under what conditions?

Bates, A. and Poole, G. (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Brindley, J., Walti, C. and Blashke, L. (2009) Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 10, No. 3

Entwistle, N. (2000) Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts Leicester UK: TLRP Conference

Garrison, R., Anderson, A. and Archer, W. (2000) Critical Inquiry in a Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 3

Harasim, L. (2012) Learning Theory and Online Technologies New York/London: Routledge

Hiltz, R. and Turoff, M. (1978) The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer Reading MA: Addison-Wesley

Jung, I. and Gunawardena, C. (eds.) (2014) Culture and Online Learning: Global Perspectives and Research Sterling VA: Stylus

Laurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies New York/London: Routledge

Marton, F. and Saljö, R. (1997) Approaches to learning, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (eds.) The experience of learning: Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press (out of press, but available online)

Paloff, R. and Pratt, K. (2005) Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Paloff, R. and Pratt, K. (2007) Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Pask, G. (1975) Conversation, Cognition and Learning Amsterdam/London: Elsevier (out of press, but available online)

Salmon, G. (2000) e-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online London: Taylor and Francis

Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2006) Knowledge Building: Theory, pedagogy and technology in Sawyer, K. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences New York: cambridge University Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The concurrence of both constructivist approaches to learning and the development of the Internet has led to the development of a particular form of constructivist teaching, originally called computer-mediated communication (CMC), or networked learning, but which has been developed into what Harasim (2012) now calls online collaborative learning theory (OCL).