CRITICAL ELEMENTS ASSIGNMENT:Principles of good online teaching.
Critical Element
(Teaching and Learning
Principles)
Social Presence
Definition
Significance
Implications for teacher
roles and activity.
“The degree to which a person is
perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication.” (Gunawardena &
Zittle, 1996, p.55)
“Teacher immediacy” contributes to
student satisfaction and learning…”
(Hackman & Walker, 1990 as cited in
Gunawardena & Zittle, 1996, p.55)
1. Can ‘social presence’ be “cultured”
when using computer mediated
communication?
2. How can non-verbal cues be
expressed effectively when using
computer mediated communication that
is non-verbal?
3. What degree of social presence is
necessary to enhance affective and
cognitive learning using computer
mediated communication?
4. To what extent is social presence
affected by different social processes,
settings and purposes within computermediated communication?
Interaction
“Reciprocal events that require at least
two objects and two actions.
Interactions occur when these two
objects and events mutually influence
each other.” (Wagner, 1994 as cited in
Anderson, 2003)
Three types of instructional interaction
have traditionally been accepted.
(Moore, 1989, as cited in Gunawardena
& Zittle, 1996, p.54), learner-content,
learner-instruction, learner-learner.
Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994)
proposed technological communication
necessitates “conceptualisation of an
additional type of interaction: learnerinterface interaction”.
1. What type and level of interaction is
essential for learning? ( in Gunawardena
& Zittle, 1996, p.54)
2. What can the teacher do to support
interaction between learner-content,
learner-instruction, learner-learner,
learner-teacher and learner-interface in
an online (distance) learning situation?
3. How does synchronous and
asynchronous interaction affect
learning?
4. What type of interaction can the new
interactive technologies provide in and
out of the classroom?
5. Can education afford not to pursue
the opportunities new interactive
Collaboration
(Collaborative Learning)
“A situation in which two or more
people learn or attempt to learn
something together.” (Dillenbourg,
1999)
Qualitative differences between
traditional and distance settings in the
way collaborative arrangements are
implemented. (Gunawardena & Zittle,
1996, p.57) More opportunities for selfmanagement by learners, “greater and
more open interaction …and more group
generated input.” (Gunawardena &
Zittle, 1996, p.57)
Learner centeredness
Student-centered learning (SCL), or
learner centeredness, is a learning
model that places the student (learner)
in the center of the learning process.
(National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning. 1999)
A ‘constructivist’ approach to learning
that is focused on the learner’s needs,
abilities, interests and learning style. The
teacher becomes “a guide through
shared learning process rather than as
an authoritative disseminator of
knowledge.” (Gunawardena & Zittle,
1996, p.57)
Teaching methods include active, cooperative and inductive teaching and
learning. Knowledge is constructed by
the individual in a social or group
setting.
technologies provide?
1. “How does on-line learning affect
group interaction” and how do these
dynamics impact on “peer exchange and
collaborative learning”. (Gunawardena
& Zittle, 1996, p.57)
2. How many opportunities do online
media present for collaborative
learning?
3. What can the teacher do to increase
the opportunities for learners to work
collaboratively online?
4. What activities work effectively online
to foster authentic collaboration?
5. How do online systems “support three
educational processes: idea generating
(and gathering), idea linking, and idea
structuring?” (Gunawardena & Zittle,
1996, p.57)
1. This approach affects curriculum,
course content and teaching strategies
to accommodate individual needs
(intellectual and emotional).
2. It better meets learner’s social needs
through collaboration, communication
and peer approval.
3. Impacts on teacher through
“increased planning and organization of
materials and syllabus, designing
instruction to be more learnercentered.” (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1996,
p.57)
4. Teaching methods acknowledge
student voice as central to learning
experience.
Learning centeredness continued.
Cognitive strategies
“Mental activities performed by
persons.” (West, Farmer & Wolf, 1991 as
cited in Gunawardena & Zittle, 1996,
p.55)
Researchers not unified on strategies.
West, Farmer & Wolf (1991, as cited in
Gunawardena & Zittle, 1996, p.55)
believed they can be grouped into four
families:
 Chunking or organizing
strategies (complex arrays or
frames)
 Spatial learning strategies
(concept maps)
 Bridging strategies (advance
organisers and metaphors)
 General purpose strategies
(rehearsal, imagery and
mnemonics)
Olgren (1992, as cited in Gunawardena
& Zittle, 1996, p.56) found four types of
cognitive strategies:
1. Selection strategies (two types)
1a. External
1b. Internal
2. Rehearsal strategies
3. Organization strategies
4. Elaboration strategies.
5. Learners active participants,
responsible for own learning, involved in
how to demonstrate learning.
6. Student resistance to learner
centered teaching methods.
7. Assessment problematic. Participate
in evaluation of learning as against
traditional teacher centered assessment.
1. “What cognitive strategies enhance
learning from different forms of
mediated communication?”
(Gunawardena & Zittle, 1996, p.56)
2. What impact does teaching have on
developing strategies? Can they be
explicitly taught?
3. Are cognitive strategies inextricably
linked to cognitive development and
intellectual ability or can higher-level
cognitive strategies by fostered through
mediated communication?
4. How can emotional engagement be
ethically stimulated by the teacher to
enhance “active mental engagement
through higher-level cognitive
strategies?” (Gunawardena & Zittle,
1996, p.56)
5. What ratio of importance do the
variables identified by Olgren (1992, as
cited in Gunawardena & Zittle, 1996,
p.56) have on the employment of the
various cognitive strategies (strategy
knowledge/learner’s perceptions/
interpretation of task/ past experience
of (academic) study)?
Technological Presence
The degree to which a person can
construct technological learning designs
that “address the complex
interrelationships between learning
tasks, media attributes and the learner’s
cognitive processes.” (Gunawardena &
Zittle, 1996, p.53) Learning designers of
online learning environments and learnercentered instructions.
Teachers are designers of learning, and
within an online environment they must
by extension become learning designers of
online learning environments and learnercentered instructions. Poor technological
presence becomes a barrier to learning
success and fails to guide and support
the learning process.
1. We need to redefine teachers as
‘designers of online learning’. “Game
designers create well-designed
experiences and social interactions… If
we "re-professionalize" teachers as
designers, they can create their own
scripts for what they want students to
learn.” (Barseghian, 2011 as cited in
Bogdan, 2011)
2. .Teachers need to create online
experiences tailored to suit their
teaching outcomes as failure to do so
impacts on the success of their learners.
3. Teachers need to design effective and
inclusive online management and
assessment systems that support the
learning and teaching and use effectively
media attributes that is more than just
overlying traditional methods in an
online environment.
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. (2003) Getting the Mix Right Again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. http://equivalencytheorem.info/?page_id=17 retrieved 9/4/2013
Bogdan, P. (2011) Student-Centered Learning Environments: How and Why. http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-centered-learning-environments-paul-bogdan
retrieved 8/4/2013
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_learning retrieved 9/4/2013
Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, R. (1996). An examination of teaching and learning processes in distance education and implications for designing instruction. In M.F.
Beaudoin (Ed.), Distance Education Symposium 3: Instruction (Vol. 12, pp. 51-63). State College, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (1999). Learner-centered classrooms, problem based learning and the construction of understanding and
meaning. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc3learn.html Retrieved 9/4/2013
TASK B. Justification for inclusion of ‘Technological Presence’ as a critical element of teaching and learning principles in a
modern online environment.
E-learning requires a complex interplay of “social, multi-modal and technical (aspects)”. (Andrews, 2011) Anderson (2008) saw “design and construction …”
(p. 346) as constituting the first opportunity for teachers to develop their Teacher Presence. I believe technical aspects are better served being recognised
in their own right. Learners are affected negatively by teachers with poor Technological Presence. In school, teachers struggle for competency using basic
equipment unable to troubleshooting minor problems. Equipment lies unused or is underused (SMARTboads used as projectors instead of interactively).
Teachers are unable to teach the basics of common software programmes (EXCEL and Publisher) and refuse to consider using online programmes as too
difficult and time-consuming to learn. The resulting high rate of technological failure impacts on classroom delivery of activities. Ignorance of software and
apps available and their use is a barrier to new learning experiences and approaches. That is why Technological Presence is a critical element.
REFERENCES
Anderson. T. (2008) Teaching in an online context in T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning. 2nd ed., 343 – 366. Retrieved from
http://www.aupress.co/books/120146/ebook/14_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Andrews. R (2011) Does e-learning require a new theory of learning? Some initial thoughts. Journal for Educational Research Online. 3(1), 104 – 121. Waxmann.
http://www.j-e-r-o.com/index.php/jero/article/viewfile/84/108 retrieved 13/3/2013
Teaching presence
(structure/process)
Setting climate
Designing learning
environments
Educational
Technological
presence
Experience
(learning design)
Social presence
Supporting
discourse
Designing
Learner-centered
instructions
Cognitive presence
COMMUNICATION MEDIUM
Figure 1: Community of Inquiry - Four Presences (adapted from Anderson 2008)
TASK THREE
Context of practice: Year 7 and 8 Department within a Year 7 to 13 College.
(I) Adoption of the framework would suggest that practical activity should be collaborative (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996,
p. 56, Anderson, 2008, p. 346, McLoughlin and Lee, 2008, p.16, Conceicao, 2007, p.9, Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16),
learner centered (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996, p. 57, Anderson, 2008, p. 346, McLoughlin and Lee, 2008, p.16,
Conceicao, 2007, p. 7, Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16) and interactive (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996, p. 53,
Anderson, 2008, p. 345, McLoughlin and Lee, 2008, p.16, Conceicao, 2007, p. 8, Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16). The
activities should scaffold the learners to use higher order cognitive strategies (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996, p. 55,
Anderson, 2008, p. 345, Conceicao, 2007, p. 7, Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16) that occur in a safe, respectful learning
environment created through the social presence (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996, p. 55, Anderson, 2008, p. 345,
Conceicao, 2007, p. 9, Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16) of the teacher who sets the scene and tone of the learning
both in the classroom and online.
(II) In the context of my professional practice this means I use “immediacy behaviours” (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996
p.55) designed to build a warm, trusting relationship that increases learner happiness and engagement. I address them by
name, smile, and use my voice and body language in class. On-line I use their names, include emoticons and animated
illustrations. I encourage verbal discussion in the class and emails online. I give immediate feedback – verbal and written in
class, and written or pictorial online. Teaching activities scattered through the programme reinforce the sense that class
members and I have an interpersonal relationship of and online, as do the learners with each other. These practical
activities are part of my “Social Presence” (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996, p.54).
Learning programmes are individualized and differentiated as “learning is most effective when differential development
…is taken into account” (Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16).
‘Front loading’ activities are used to tap into prior learning and build a broad knowledge base from which learners can
choose to pursue an avenue of inquiry of their own choice (Hannum and McCombs, 2008). Learners are encourage to use
a wide range of resources – from people to books, journals, online videos, interactive media to websites. Classroom
instruction ranges from whole class, to teams, small groups, and one-to-one. Study grouping encourages collaborative
learning, is flexible and varies according to need. Online learning can be whole class but it usually done in pairs or threes.
Ipads and tablets can be used in groups and pairs but some apps lend themselves to individual use, particularly for special
needs learners. Inclusion of digital devices and media allows learning to frequently be interactive and for the learner to
interact, collaborate and participate in the construction of their learning.
Cognitive strategies are taught explicitly as part of the classroom programme. Learning outcomes step up through three
levels of cognitive difficulty. Instructional vocabulary matches these levels. Cognitive strategies such as “chunking and
organizing strategies … spatial learning strategies … and bridging … and general strategies” (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996
p.56) are part of our school wide teaching of thinking, vocabulary and literacy strategies.
(III)
The changes I foresee in moving to online/technology- enhances learning are for the most part positive. In the senior
school, learners will have greater subject choice in NCEA. Learners will not be denied entry into subjects because class
numbers are too small or there is no teacher for that subject. Learners will be able to participate in “synchronous
modalities” (Anderson, 2008, p. 344) using Skype or other conferencing technologies. They will be able to collaborate and
interact with other learners around the country. Provision of asynchronous teaching with video and ‘STREAM” like courses
will enable learners to take part in classes with learners and teachers worldwide. Both modalities combine to “create
…communications-rich learning context(s)”. (Anderson, 2008, p. 344)
The use of Moodle or similar programmes will enable teachers and learners to engage with the programme on an
anytime, anywhere basis. Dropbox, Google docs and The Cloud will enable learners and teachers to access files from
anywhere on an as needs basis. The use of Facebook, Twitter, email and texts will enable teachers to build strong social
presence and provide learners with a collaborative, interactive learning space. These communication technologies
however, do more than enhance the learning process, or convey information. Nearly thirty years ago, Ramsden (1984)
stated, “without sustained interaction the learner has few opportunities to develop deep understanding.” (as cited in
Garrison, 2006, p. 205) Online learning is not developing as an individual activity as feared by early researchers (Holmberg,
1989 as cited in Garrison, 2006, p. 205), instead teachers are providing online environments in which learners can actively
engage with the content, the teacher and other learners. Discussion and discourse support the learner as they construct
their knowledge. Transactional Distance and Control are issues that arise through distance learning (Dron, 2007, p.19) but
I am confident application of educational systems based on good pedagogy will support the relationship between teacher
and learner, allowing quality dialogue and responsive structure. (Moore, 1980 as cited in Dron, 2007, p.21)
This year three e-learning classes were set up in Year 8 as a trial. Initial concerns are based on practicalities in the
classrooms. However, discussion is now occurring around pedagogical concerns that link directly to elements within the
framework. A ‘bring your own devices’ policy is driving a more learner-centered approach in these classrooms as tablets
and ipads have different apps and laptops have none at all. This is giving learners more independence, but also more
responsibility by providing opportunities for learners to search for resources and apps themselves, to support their
learning, and also share them with other learners and the teacher. Teachers are looking for ways in which to communicate
successfully with all learners despite the different technologies. Traditional planning developed for face-to-face classroom
instruction isn’t meeting the needs of the e-class teachers. Planning is being developed retrospectively on a trial and error
basis. Student voice is being canvassed in a variety of ways, using SurveyMonkey for more formal specific feedback from
both learners and parents, and informal feedback on ‘what went well’ and ‘what needs to be changed’ on a regular basis.
Learners know they are an important part of the trial, that their input and feedback is valued and listened to. Motivation
in the classes is high, not just because of the technology, but because the learners are finding the programme more
interactive, collaborative and learner-centered than they have been used to in the past.
At the moment, areas that are being monitored are independent learning/collaborative learning ratios, managing regular
learner dialogue and feedback, assessment of learner progress and achievement as compared to learners in traditional
classrooms.
Hannum and McCombs (2008) identify standards and assessment as “integral parts of the learning process” (p.16). The
school has always subscribed to this philosophy using e-asTTle since 2005. This allows us to use data for “diagnostic,
process, and outcome assessment” Hannum and McCombs, 2008, p.16). E-classes will continue to participate in the
baseline data testing. This will enable us to compare and contrast achievement of the iPad only and BYOD classes, and eclasses against conventional classes.
Finally I believe adopting the framework and using it drive technology-enhanced learning will “provide opportunities for
learners to become producers of resources as opposed to consumers of content”. (McLoughlin and Lee, 2008, p.16)
Ultimately this change will support teachers to move into the role of learners and encourage learners to become teachers.
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 343-366). Retrieved
from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/14_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Conceicao, S. C. O. (2007). Teaching strategies in the online environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey: Boss.
Dron, J. (2007). From transactional distance to transactional control. In Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose (pp. 18-39). Hershey,
PA: Idea Group.
Hannum, W. H. & McCombs, B. L. (2008). Enhancing distance learning for today’s youth with learner-centered principles. Educational Technology, 48(3), 1121. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wallacehannum.com/LCPs_Educational_Technology.pdf
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P's of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27.