USING THE TEXT ANALYTICS FOR SURVEYS MODEL AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY TO MEASURE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING PRESENCE IN AN ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

Melissa LAYNE, Phil ICE, Elizabeth WALLACE

Abstract


Teaching presence in online environments is a critical, contributing component to students’ success in an online course and ultimately benefits both the student and the instructor. Oftentimes, online postsecondary institutions measure the existence of instructor presence by the administration of end-of-course surveys, where students have the opportunity evaluate certain aspects of the course through Likert-items and open-ended questions. Analysis for survey Likert-items is a fairly straightforward process using quantitative measures; however, qualitative analysis—particularly for large numbers of online student responses, commonly involves time-consuming coding and thematic extraction processes best suited for smaller amounts of qualitative data. To address this issue, a fully online university employed the Text Analytics for Surveys Model (TASM) as a tool to analyze 219 students’ qualitative responses to the existence of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework category, Teaching Presence, collected from the institution’s end-of-course survey. The goals of this study were to (a) determine the accuracy of the TASM compared against traditional hand-coding methods in the analysis of the open-ended student responses to the CoI End-of-Course Survey, and (b) measure the perceived existence of CoI Teaching Presence among undergraduate and graduate students taking an online course.


Full Text:

PDF

References


{1} AccuLine Qualitative Analysis Software (1990). Harpe & Associates Ltd. http://www.harpe.ca.

{2} Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2).

{3} Andersen, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

{4} Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.

{5} Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2d edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

{6} Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.

{7} Bork, R. H., & Rucks-Ahidiana, Z. (2013). Virtual courses and tangible expectations: An analysis of students’ and instructors’ opinions of online courses. Manuscript in preparation.

{8} Carey, J. W. (1994a). Methods for Analyzing Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions. TB Notes Summer:13714. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Tuberculosis Elimination.

{9} Carey, J. W. (1994b). Improving International HIV Program Planning: Systematic Interview Methods in the Context of Programmatic Needs Assessment. Masters thesis in Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta.

{10} Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

{11} Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Health.

{12} Edgecombe, N., Barragan, M., & Rucks-Ahidiana, Z. (2013). Enhancing the online experience through interactive technologies: An empirical analysis of technology usage in community college. Manuscript in preparation.

{13} Feintuch, H. (2010). Keeping their distance. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 27(3), p. 20.

{14} Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning: Social, teaching and cognitive presence. In C. Howard et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed., pp. 352-355). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

{15} 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.

{16} Given, Lisa M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

{17} Gorden, R. (1992). Basic Interviewing Skills. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

{18} IBM Corp. Released (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

{19} Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Beyond flexibility: Why students choose online courses in community colleges. Manuscript in preparation.

{20} Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2013). Predicting online outcomes from a measure of course quality. Manuscript in preparation.

{21} La Lopa, J. (2011). Student reflection on quality teaching and how to assess it in higher education. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 9 (4), 282-292.

{22} Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.

{23} Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. 2d edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

{24} Milstein, B. and K. MacQueen (1994). AnSWR on the horizon. Practicing Anthropology 16(3).

{25} Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

{26} Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

{27} Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

{28} Quillen, I. (2010). E-learning delivery debated. Education Week, 29(30), 5.

{29} Rummel, R. J. (1997). The Miracle That Is Freedom. In R. J. Rummel (Ed.), The Miracle That Is Freedom: The Solution to War, Violence, Genocide, and Poverty. Martin Monograph Series No. 1 Moscow, Idaho: Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, University of Idaho.

{30} Trotter, R.T. (1993). Review of TALLY 3.0. CAM 5(2), p.10-12.

{31} Weitzman, E. A. and M. B. Miles (1995). Computer Programs for Qualitative Data Analysis: A Software Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

{32} Xu, D. & Jaggars, S. S. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of online learning within a community college system: An instrumental variable approach. Manuscript in preparation. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

{33} Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas (CCRC Working Paper No. 54). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


>> JADLET is indexed by EBSCO http://www.ebscohost.com

Published by Romania Advanced Distributed Learning Partnership Lab

>>OPEN JOURNAL SYSTEM

>>How to use this site