You are here:

Psychosocial Learning Environments in Online versus Blended Instruction
PROCEEDINGS

, , University of Alabama, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between the development of the three presences in the Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework in online versus blended instruction. The CoI framework consists of the teaching, social, and cognitive presences, as well as the confluence of the three. The development of a psychosocial education environment was considered from a quantitative perspective. Undergraduate courses offered at a southeastern United States research university were the context of the study. The findings revealed that there was no significant difference in the development of a community of inquiry, or in the development of teaching presence or cognitive presence. Conversely, students in the blended courses felt the development of social presence more successfully than the students in the online courses. Specifically, the difference in the affective expression subscale within social presence was significant between the two delivery methods.

Citation

Hale, M.A. & Rice, M.L. (2015). Psychosocial Learning Environments in Online versus Blended Instruction. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 320-325). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2022 from .

© 2015 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D., & Ozden, M. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65-83. AUP.
  2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended Community of Inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250.
  3. Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
  4. Duffy, T., & Kirkley, J.R. (2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
  6. 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.
  7. Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1).
  8. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  9. Ramsden, P. (1988). Improving learning: New perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
  10. Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1-12.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read