ROLE: Research in Online Literacy Education, A GSOLE Publication

Community Building and Collaborative Learning in OWI

A Case Study of Principle 11

by Mary K. Stewart

Publication Details

OLOR Series:	Research in Online Literacy Education
Author(s):	Mary K. Stewart
Original Publication Date:	15 March 2018
Permalink:	<gsole.org/olor/role/vol1.iss1.a>

Abstract

This study examines Principle 11 of the CCCC Position Statement on Online Writing Instruction (OWI), which emphasizes creating personalized and interpersonal online communities to foster student success, particularly how these communities impact student satisfaction and collaborative learning in online writing courses (OWCs). By analyzing student interactions and interviews, the study finds that while students feel a sense of community and satisfaction, this does not always translate into collaborative learning. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework is proposed as a tool to better understand and enhance these online interactions. The study suggests that while current practices support student satisfaction, more strategies are needed to promote deeper collaborative learning. The findings highlight the importance of clear goals and effective practices in developing online communities that not only engage students but also enhance their learning outcomes.

Media, Figures, Tables

Figure 1. The Community of Inquiry Framework, first published in Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2000, p. 88)
Table 1. Community of Inquiry Categories and Indicators(Garrison, 2017, p. 28)
Table 2. Participant Demographics
Figure 2. Teaching Presence Categories Frequency
Figure 3. Social Presence Categories Frequency, Alex’s Course
Figure 4. Cognitive Presence Categories Frequency, Alex’s Course
Table 3. Categories & Principle 11 Effective Practices to Facilitate Student Satisfaction and Collaborative Learning

Resource Contents

1. Introduction

[1] The CCCC Position Statement of Principles and Effective Practices in OWI (2013) identifies 15 principles of online writing instruction (OWI). The principles were designed to be broad, offering writing instructors effective practices to implement in their online writing courses (OWCs), and providing institutions with guidelines for supporting online writing instructors and students. In his preface to Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, Newbold (2015) explained that the broad nature of the principles “makes them particularly valuable for starting discussions on campuses and within institutions” (p. xv). While the breadth of the principles has value, it can also create challenges for research and implementation. As such, an important next step for OWI scholarship is to critically examine the principles and conduct empirical research to support or revise the effective practices.

[2] This webtext offers such an examination of Principle 11, which states, “online writing teachers and their institutions should develop personalized and interpersonal online communities to foster student success” (p. 23). The breadth of the principle is particularly prominent in the call for “student success,” which could take on a variety of meanings, including student satisfaction, perceived and actual achievement, and particular learning outcomes that the instructor or program identify. Hewett (2015) recognized some of the challenges with such a broad notion of community. She particularly pointed to the way community has been “romanticized” by writing instructors—we believe in community for the sake of community, and we trust that multiple positive outcomes occur when students and instructors develop a sense of community. This belief in the overarching positivity of community can prevent us from precisely defining what we mean by “community” and why we think it benefits our students. Hewett consequently proposed that “course-based ‘community’ may need a different definition to make the work of OWI Principle 11 realistic” (p. 74). She suggested we differentiate between “the transactional versus social nature of academic groups” (p. 74), and that we focus more on the social than the transactional. She concluded that the goal of community in an OWC is to “increase student satisfaction” (p. 75) and “make the mediated interaction more human” (p. 75). I propose we follow Hewett’s lead and approach Principle 11 in terms of the goals of community. Without a more explicit definition of the intended outcomes of community, it is difficult to use the principle as a foundation for research.

[3] I further recommend that, in addition to viewing student satisfaction and engagement as a goal of commnity in OWCs, we also recognize collaborative learning as a goal of community. My recommendation is in part based on an analysis of the seven effective practices associated with Principle 11. Four of the seven practices (11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7) support student satisfaction, and the remaining three emphasize peer interaction in support of collaborative learning (11.2, 11.1, 11.5).

[4] Practices 11.3, 11.4, and 11.6 focus on establishing the teacher-student relationship with the end goal of increasing student satisfaction. Instructors should communicate expectations to students “regularly and systematically” (11.3), “respond to students’ formal projects in a timely manner” (11.4), and solicit feedback about the course in a way that “develop[s] the interpersonal relationship between teacher and student” (11.6). The goal is for students to feel connected to the course and be aware of the instructor’s expectations. Principle 11’s commitment to student satisfaction is even more evident in practice 11.7, which recommends that instructors “develop forums, threads, and assessments in which students can have open discussions, either with or without teacher involvement, about course dynamics” (CCCC Position Statement, p. 24). The goal is to give students the opportunity to “express their experiences and to vent their frustrations” (p. 24) in the service of creating a “greater willingness to persevere in a new or different learning setting” (p. 24). Instructors create a space where students can speak frankly about their experiences, which ultimately increases satisfaction and engagement as they “persevere” in the online course.

[5] The learning-oriented practices move beyond helping students feel comfortable and confident in the online space and instead directly relate peer interaction with learning to write. Practice 11.2 recommends ice-breaking activities “that engage student writing” (p. 23). Practice 11.1 emphasizes the importance of small class sizes, arguing that smaller classes enable “students to know each other and each other’s writing” (p. 23). Practice 11.5 states that instructors should integrate informal writing into the course and “use the technological opportunities that most likely will elicit meaningful responses among class participants” (p. 24). Students in these courses will not only get to know each other, but they will develop writing skills by both practicing writing and being exposed to others’ writing. Furthermore, as practice 11.5 notes, the goal to “elicit meaningful responses among class participants” (my emphasis), such that students are interacting with one another to support their learning. The implication is that interaction and community are important not only for ensuring that students stay engaged in the course, but also for learning about writing.

[6] My interest in the difference between student satisfaction and collaborative learning as outcomes of community is in part due to my suspicion that both teachers and students gravitate more toward satisfaction than collaboration in OWCs. In fact, the students I observed and interviewed for the case study presented later in this webtext indicated that they were fully aware of satisfaction as an outcome of peer interaction, and they felt that goal was achieved. However, they were less likely to describe peer interaction as an activity that directly supported their learning in the course. Consequently, this webtext argues for increased attention to collaborative learning in our conversations about Principle 11. Additionally, I recommend the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison, 2017) as a guiding theory for describing the ways we engage our online writing students in collaborative learning, and I present a case study that uses the CoI Framework to analyze students’ interactions in an OWC. But first, I review the Principle 11 literature on collaboration.

1.1 Principle 11 Literature on Collaboration

[7] To learn more about how OWI researchers are approaching Principle 11, I reviewed the Bedford Bibliography of Research in Online Writing Instruction (2017), which lists 140 articles related to Principle 11. It is important to note that none of these projects explicitly investigate Principle 11; instead, this is a collection of articles that OWI researchers have identified as pertinent. Within that list, I identified several projects in which the authors focused on collaboration. These projects can be divided into three categories: those that focus on collaborative writing, those that focus on peer review of student writing, and those that focus on more general student interaction and discussion (see Appendix).

[8] Specific to collaborative writing, some scholars examine the efficacy of particular tools for collaborative writing (Kittle & Hicks, 2009; Laurinen & Marttunen, 2007; Morton-Standish, 2014; Pittenger & Olson-Kellog, 2012). Other scholars compare online/face-to-face or synchronous/asynchronous environments for collaborative writing (Lo, 2013; Handayani, 2012; Mabrito, 2001; Wichadee, 2013). Still others explore the role of instructor feedback in collaborative writing (Alvarez, Espasa, & Guasch, 2012) or focus on collaborative workplace writing (Reilly & L’Eplattenier, 1996).

[9] Beyond collaborative writing, some scholars listed on the Principle 11 annotated bibliography focus on peer responses to individually authored essays. Some projects explore student collaboration during peer review (Barrett, 1993; Breuch, 2005; Hruby, Mascle, & Trent, 2014; Yang & Wu, 2011) or peer tutoring (Simpson, 2006). Others explore workshop-style collaborations between students in multiple classrooms (Townsend & Nail, 2011; Walkington, 2012; Yangelski & Powley, 1996).

[10] A third context for Principle 11 scholarship on collaboration involves more general interaction and discussion. Most of this scholarship focuses on the learning students experience as a result of participating in discussion forums (Brunk-Chavez & Miller, 2007; Carter & Rukholm, 2008; Condon & Valverde, 2014; Johnson & Card, 2008; Olson-Horswill, 2002; Palmquist, 1993; Walker, 2005). Some projects more broadly consider student experiences in interactively designed courses (Murugaiah & Thang, 2010; Qiu et al., 2012; Rendahl & Breuch, 2013; Tesdell, 2013) or faculty perceptions of the opportunity for collaboration online (Griffin & Minter, 2013).

[11] Of particular relevance to this project are Rendahl and Breuch (2013) and Brunk-Chavez and Miller (2007). Rendahl and Breuch observed, surveyed, and interviewed students in an online first-year writing course about their perceptions of study habits that lead to success in an online course. They found that, even though instructors had intentionally integrated peer interaction into the course, the “students did not consider communication with peers as a productive study activity” (p. 297). Brunk-Chavez and Miller also found a disconnect between student and teacher expectations about collaborative learning online, but it was the inverse of Rendahl and Breuch’s findings: they surveyed students in a hybrid first-year writing course and found that students “had a fairly clear appreciation of group work and the collaborative process” and “desired working in groups and collaborative environments” (n.p.). However, the instructors were not incorporating many collaborative activities into the online segments of their courses. Brunk-Chavez and Miller analyzed instructor interviews to learn more, and found that, “while the majority of instructors participating in our study stated that they value collaborative learning, each had a different approach to, and in some cases, a different definition of collaboration” (n.d.). Brunk-Chavez and Miller conclude that we “need more attention to what is being done, how it is being done, and why (or not) it is working” (n.p.).

[12] The discussion of collaboration across the literature mirrors the broad nature of Principle 11: the projects address a wide range of learning activities and goals of interaction, implying diverse understandings of the ways “online writing teachers and their institutions should develop personalized and interpersonal online communities to foster student success” (Principle 11). Furthermore, there is some evidence of disconnects between student and teacher understandings of and expectations about collaboration. Consequently, there is an opportunity for OWI researchers to develop a more specific vocabulary for describing the ways in which we develop community in support of collaborative learning online.

[13] In that spirit, I recommend we adopt a well-tested and highly regarded theory in online learning scholarship: the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework (Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison, 2017). The CoI Framework adopts a “collaborative approach to thinking and learning,” defining collaboration as a “fusion of the personal and social,” such that “sustained contact” with peers “allows individuals to share and test ideas” (Garrison, 2017, p. 11). The framework also identifies three elements that simultaneously inform the collaborative learning experience: social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence. These elements create a vocabulary that assists online researchers in studying collaborative learning and assists online instructors in designing and assessing collaboration. Adopting the CoI vocabulary in our research on and pedagogical applications of Principle 11 can help us translate the theory of collaborative learning into the practice of OWI.

1.2 The Community of Inquiry Framework

[14] The Community of Inquiry Framework was developed in 2000 by online learning researchers (Garrison et al., 2000), and has since been widely applied to the design and assessment of online courses (Garrison, 2017). Grounded in a collaborative-constructivist theory of learning, the Framework assumes that learning requires a sense of community, and defines learning as collaborative. The value of the CoI Framework for OWI scholarship is that it not only gives us a vocabulary for talking about community and collaboration, but also provides a well-tested method for designing and assessing collaborative learning in online courses. In applying CoI to an OWI context, this webtext contributes to a growing body of writing studies literature that employs the CoI Framework, including those listed on the Principle 11 annotated bibliography (Cox et al., 2015; Cunningham, 2015; Hubbard, n.d.), and those not listed (Grigoryan, 2017; Kim, 2016; Stewart, 2017).

[15] As Figure 1 illustrates, the Community of Inquiry Framework maintains that collaborative learning requires three interrelated elements: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Teaching presence is the design and facilitation of a course, social presence is the extent to which students “feel real” to one another, and cognitive presence is the critical thinking and knowledge co-construction that results from peer interaction.

Figure 1. The Community of Inquiry Framework, first published in Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2000, p. 88)

[16] To further define the elements of a CoI, and to create a strategy for assessing the extent to which the presences exist in online courses, CoI researchers identified several categories and associated indicators of each presence (Table 1). Early CoI research used these categories to code asynchronous discussion forums and thus describe the extent to which online courses were functioning as communities of inquiry (e.g., Rourke et al., 1999). In the case study presented later in this webtext, I replicate that research by coding data from an OWC. In other words, I use the CoI vocabulary to describe the extent to which the courses I observed developed community in support of collaborative learning.

Table 1. Community of Inquiry Categories and Indicators (Garrison, 2017, p. 28)

Elements	Categories	Indicators
Teaching Presence	Design & Organization	Setting curriculum and methods
	Facilitating Discourse	Shaping constructive exchange
	Direct Instruction	Focusing and resolving issues
Social Presence	Interpersonal communication	Self projection/expressing emotions
	Open communication	Learning climate/risk-free expression
	Group Cohesion	Group identity/collaboration
Cognitive Presence	Triggering Event	Sense of puzzlement
	Exploration	Information exchange
	Integration	Connecting ideas
	Resolution	Applying new ideas

[17] The categories for teaching presence are “design and organization,” “direct instruction,” and “facilitation” (Garrison, 2017, p. 28, 70-76). In the context of OWI, these categories include the ways instructors write and deliver assignment instructions, the feedback they provide to student writing, any public responses they post to discussion forums, and any instances where the writing instructor directs students to interact with peers. The categories for social presence are “interpersonal communication,” “open communication,” and “group cohesion” (Garrison, 2017, p. 44-46). The social presence categories are measured during student-student interaction; in an OWC, that might include discussion forums, peer review activities, and collaborative writing or group projects. The categories for cognitive presence are the four phases of practical inquiry: “triggering event,” “exploration,” “integration,” and “resolution” (Garrison, 2017, p. 55-57, 65-67). In an OWC, the first three phases of cognitive presence most likely occur in discussion forums, during the exchange of peer review comments, or during the development of collaborative writing or group projects. The final phase of cognitive presence, resolution, most likely occurs in the individual or collaborative compositions that students submit for instructor review. These categories will be described in more depth in the Findings section of this webtext, as I present instances within the OWC that illustrate each category.

[18] Importantly, all three presences are interrelated. Students cannot achieve cognitive presence without interacting with peers (social presence), and this combination of social and cognitive presence only occurs when instructors create environments that require collaborative learning (teaching presence). Of particular interest to this discussion is the relationship between social and cognitive presence. Principle 11 researchers can use the CoI Framework to assess the extent to which community in an OWC supports student satisfaction (social presence only) or supports collaborative learning (social and cognitive presence).

2. Methods

[19] This IRB-approved, qualitative study employs the CoI Framework to analyze students’ interactions with peers in an online writing course. The larger study included a survey of students in four sections of an online writing course, observations of ten of those students, and interviews with five of the students. The data presented here focuses on one course section, including observations of three students and interviews with two students.

2.1 Participants

[20] In the Spring of 2017, the study participants were enrolled in a fully online, asynchronous second-year composition course at a four-year institution in the MidAtlantic. To select the participants, I randomly selected instructors who were teaching online that semester and requested permission to contact their students (I did not study any of my own students). I then emailed a “research participation” survey to the students, asking if they were willing to participate in an observation or in an observation and interview. Students had the opportunity to indicate that they did not wish to participate in the study.

[21] This webtext focuses on the data collected from a course taught by a temporary faculty member, “Alex.” I report on my observation of “Kimberly”, and my observation of and interviews with “Kirk” and “Kassie.” Participant demographics are described in Table 2; these demographics were self-reported on a survey.

Table 2: Participant Demographics

Pseudonym	Year (Major)	Gender Identity	Primary Language
Alex	n/a – Instructor	Male	English as first language
Kimberly	Sophomore (Physics Education)	Female	English as first language
Kassie	Junior (Criminology)	Female	English as first language
Kirk	Junior (Chemistry)	Male	English as first language

[22] The participants were selected for this webtext because Alex designed the most explicitly collaborative course of any I observed (see Course Design below). As such, this course seemingly contained the most potential to function as a community of inquiry. Furthermore, Kassie and Kirk’s interview data were representative of the themes I observed across the five interviews I conducted.

2.2 Course Design

[23] The second-year writing course in this study focused on research writing and culminated in an academic research paper. The course was offered in an asynchronous, online environment, using the institutional learning management system (LMS), Desire2Learn (D2L). Alex employed a game-based course design. Students completed weekly “quests” that included readings, discussion forum posts, and journal entries. In addition to the quests, Alex’s students engaged in a 4-week collaborative project. For that project, the students interacted in online forums and Google documents to create a collaborative presentation about a theme in the book they were reading for the course. This webtext focuses on students’ interactions during the collaborative project; Kimberly, Kirk, and Kassie were all members of different groups. More details about the course design can be found in the Teaching Presence section of the Findings.

2.3 Data Collection

[24] To “observe” the online students’ interactions, I requested that the instructor add me to the LMS as a student. I logged in once a week during the 4-week collaborative project, reading weekly assignment instructions and taking screenshots of the participants’ contributions to the discussion forums and Google documents. After each observation, I created a reflective research memo. I also conducted interviews with Kirk and Kassie. These 45-minute, semi-structured interviews took place in my office or via video chat. I audio recorded the interviews.

2.4 Data Analysis

[25] After removing identifying information, I copied the students’ forum and Google document contributions into a Word Document and then created a separate document for each student (n=3). I transcribed the interviews, and then uploaded all of these documents into NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software.

[26] To analyze the data, I hired a graduate student assistant and we each coded the observation files according to the CoI coding scheme (three categories of teaching presence, three categories of social presence, four categories of cognitive presence). We met on several occasions to talk about the categories and practice coding. After we individually coded the data associated with one student and achieved a “good” Kappa coefficient (<0.6), we individually coded the remaining observation documents. I ran a test of the inter-rater reliability and found that our codes were in the “acceptable” range (Kappa = 0.58-0.77). The coding frequencies reported in this webtext are from my coding of the documents associated with Alex’s students. After the coding was complete, I reviewed the interviews for information that might explain and contextualize the coded observation data.

3. Findings: Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence in Alex’s Course

[27] I have structured the Findings around the Community of Inquiry framework, reporting on the categories associated with each presence.

3.1 Teaching Presence

[28] The three categories of teaching presence are instructional design and organization, direct instruction, and facilitating discourse. In relation to Principle 11, teaching presence is related to the ways writing instructors intentionally design learning environments that foster community.

Design & Organization is related to the way the course is set up, and includes instructions and due dates and explanations of the goals of the assignment.
Direct Instruction involves instructor feedback, such as summarizing the discussion and diagnosing misconceptions and injecting knowledge from diverse sources.
Facilitating Discourse is more specific to student interactions, when the instructor identifies particular areas of agreement or disagreement or prompts discussion by asking students to comment or thanks students for their contributions.

I coded observational data for teaching presence when Alex participated in the discussion forums and Google documents. As illustrated in Figure 2, I observed 15 instances of Direct Instruction and 3 instances of Facilitating Discourse. I do not report a code count for Design & Organization because evidence of that category exists in assignment instructions, which I did not code for the project. In lieu of code counts, I offer a narrative account of the course design based on the interview data and my general experience with observing the course.

Figure 2: Teaching Presence Categories Frequency

[29] 3.1 Design & Organization

Alex’s course employed a game-based learning course design. Students completed weekly “quests” that included readings, discussion forum posts, and journal entries. They were not required to complete all of the quests—just enough to earn the required points for success in the course, which means they could pick and choose which quests were of more interest to them. This strategy is something both Kassie and Kirk commented on in interviews. Kassie noted that, “he didn’t like, overwhelm us as much. Like, he gives us options. … You don’t have to do, like, all of the quests.” Kirk similarly commented on the emphasis on student choice, and he stated that this enabled him to focus more on the ideas and the writing process than on creating a perfectly edited paragraph: “in this class, because you have so many options, I didn’t really stress about points too much. So whenever I did do an assignment, I was just trying to enjoy it. … I just really was trying to get more open about the thought process and not the technical side of it.” Kirk also explained that, just because he had accrued the required amount of points did not mean he stopped completing the assignments.

[30] In addition to the weekly quests, the students in Alex’s course engaged in a 4-week collaborative project, which was the focus of my observation. For that project, the students interacted in online forums and Google documents to create a collaborative presentation about a theme in the book they were reading for the course. General instructions were posted to the course homepage, and more specific instructions existed as discussion forum prompts and at the top of each Google document. In addition to the written instructions, Alex posted a video introducing the project. Kirk and Kassie explained that they fully understood Alex’s expectations and believed the course to be well organized. In other words, the design and organization of the course created a strong and positive teaching presence.

[31] It is also important to note that teaching presence is not necessarily specific to the teacher. I observed a few instances of student-enacted teaching presence when Alex invited his students to create activities for their groups. All three of the students in Kassie’s group created an activity, as did one student in each of Kimberly’s and Kirk’s groups. When I asked Kassie about this experience, she said, “I thought it was cool because we can kind of get at say in what we do. It also helped us to get ideas for our projects, because we know exactly what direction we want to go in. So we assign [an activity] for that.” Because the students created activity instructions but did not also offer feedback to their peers, these instances are examples of the Design & Organization category of Teaching Presence.

[32] 3.1.2 Direct Instruction

As with their reflections on Design & Organization, my interviews with Kassie and Kirk pointed to Direct Instruction as a positive indicator of teaching presence. They primarily focused on the ways direct instruction was enacted via email and individual feedback. Kassie explained, “he is always willing to, you know, help you out if you need it. Like, whenever I have emailed him for anything, he would always be like, oh, please contact me if you have any more questions.” Similarly, Kirk reported, “any time I email him, he is very helpful in the responses and tries to make sure that I understand everything.” In addition to answering emails, the students received regular feedback from Alex. As Kassie put it, “he gives you feedback on all of your work. Everything you do, he gives you feedback.” Kirk offered more details about the nature of that feedback:

[33] I like the way he grades, too. Because a lot of professors are, like, very vague about their assignments, but then they just destroy you grading it. He’s not like that. … He gives you the benefit of the doubt, you know. If you try something new, he will go along with it, you know, “I like the idea that you’re going with.” “These are the things that worked or these are the things that didn’t work.” I like that.

[34] Kirk and Kassie felt that Alex’s feedback and responsiveness to emails were the most positive aspect of the course, and they directly cited this interaction as beneficial to their learning. In other words, Alex’s direct instruction created a teaching presence that supported cognitive presence.

[35] I also observed several examples of direct instruction during the collaborative project (n=15), when Alex contributed to the asynchronous discussion forums and left comments in Google documents. For example, in response to Kirk’s group’s discussion forum, Alex wrote, “identity is certainly a viable general topic. Don't forget to limit it a bit further than just a blanket category. What do you think the book says about ‘identity’?” Similarly, in a comment on Kimberly’s group’s Google document, Alex wrote, “this could be a little broad (and frankly pretty complex given the psychological and neurological aspects you would have to consider). Perhaps focusing on a single aspect of neurology or psychology would narrow the topic a bit more.” Both comments are examples of direct instruction because Alex is making recommendations intended to inform students’ next steps with the project. This feedback is also an example of teaching presence supporting cognitive presence because Alex is guiding the students’ thinking and learning. In the language of Principle 11, we might say that Alex’s direct instruction is facilitating a “personalized” community, where the student-instructor relationship is strong and individualized feedback supports student learning.

[36] 3.1.3 Facilitating Discourse

The few instances of Facilitating Discourse (n=3) move beyond teaching-cognitive presence and illustrate teaching presence in support of social and cognitive presence. In a response to Kimberly’s group’s discussion forum, Alex wrote, “I think your ideas for narrowing the cyber bullying topics are sound. Have you folks picked a main topic yet? I'm happy to help.” Similarly, in a comment on Kassie’s group’s Google document, he wrote, “There's a lot of potential in this theme. It looks like you folks have a few topics to choose from. It will come down to what interests the group the most. I think all three of these topics, if properly narrowed, will make for a great research presentation.” These comments encourage the students to continue their conversations and direct them to focus those conversations on narrowing their topics. Because the comments emphasize the ways that students are supposed to be interacting with each other, they reinforce the idea that the students should be collaborating.

[37] The fact that there were fewer instances of Facilitating Discourse than of Direct Instruction suggests that, when Alex left comments, he was primarily writing to individual students about their developing ideas as opposed to writing to the group or making connections between students’ ideas. As described in the social presence and cognitive presence sections of this webtext, this tendency is representative of a more overall sense that students individually participated in the online spaces with the goal of receiving feedback (and a grade) from Alex, as opposed to collaboratively participating in the online spaces with the goal of co-constructing knowledge. In the language of Principle 11, it may be that that Alex facilitated community that increased satisfaction and provided the students with personalized instruction, but that community may not have also prompted collaborative learning. In the language of CoI, the course had a strong teaching-cognitive presence but there is less evidence of teaching-social-cognitive presence.

3.2 Social Presence

[38] In the community of inquiry framework, social presence is conceived of as a “mediator” between teaching and cognitive presence. The design and facilitation of a course (teaching presence) is meant to put students in situations where they will develop sufficient social presence to support cognitive presence. When students “feel real” to one another and are asked to interact in ways that support learning, students engage in knowledge co-construction and collaborative learning. Importantly, social presence can support both student satisfaction and student learning (Aragon, 2003)—social presence involves building trust and developing relationships with peers, which can increase students’ engagement in the course and motivation for learning. Facilitating social presence in support of student satisfaction lays the foundation for a community of inquiry, but a true community of inquiry only exists when that social presence also directly supports student learning (cognitive presence). As described below, analyzing OWCs for the social presence categories allows us to measure of the extent to which community in an OWC facilitates student satisfaction versus collaborative learning, which can inform our understanding of and approach to Principle 11.

[39] Based on the observation and interview data I collected for this study, the students in Alex’s course appear to have established sufficient social presence to support student satisfaction, but they did not engage in the types of dialogue and reflection that characterize critical inquiry and collaborative knowledge construction (cognitive presence). To describe these findings, I offer an analysis of each of the three categories of social presence: interpersonal communication, open communication, and group cohesion. As Figure 3 shows, my coding of the discussion forum and Google document data revealed more instances of group cohesion (n=23) than of interpersonal communication (n=18), and only a few instances of open communication (n=5).

Figure 3: Social Presence Categories Frequency, Alex’s Course

[40] 3.2.1 Interpersonal Communication

Garrison (2017) explains that interpersonal communication involves affective expression, which includes conventional expressions of emotion as well as repetitious punctuation or emoticons. Interpersonal communication can also include self-disclosure and vulnerability, when students share details about their personal life, or the use of humor. Interpersonal communication, then, is the most explicit way in which students present themselves as “real people” in the online classroom, which directly aligns with Hewett’s (2015) description of the goals of Principle 11. Because interpersonal communication is often what scholars think of as social presence and a sense of community, it is a sensible starting point for this discussion.

[41] There were a total of 18 instances of interpersonal communication in the data I coded from Alex’s course, primarily comprised of sharing personal details. For example, in proposing potential topics for the group project, Kassie wrote in the Google document:

[42] Kids today go home from school and hop online to see what everyone is doing, rather than picking up the phone and calling a friend, or going to hang out with a group of people. I even notice this in myself. If I have to meet with someone new, I sometimes get worked up beforehand, but after the conversation has started, and I get to know the person a little more things get better.

[43] In this instance, Kassie is proposing that the group focus their presentation on the impact of social media on relationships. She relates this to her personal experience of meeting new people, and shares with her classmates that she has some anxiety around face-to-face interaction.

[44] In another instance, the students were posting ideas for how to handle the logistics of the collaborative project in the online discussion forum. Kassie suggested that the group members adopt specific roles and volunteered to be the “brainstormer/researcher”: “I enjoy finding my information, but I sometimes have trouble organizing it, which is why I do not want to organize or draft, but I will do whatever is needed of me.” In this instance, Kassie shares about a particular area of the writing process with which she struggles. These moments of self-disclosure, what CoI researchers call “interpersonal communication,” help students “feel real” to one another, and they create a foundation upon with a trusting peer relationship can be developed.

[45] Interestingly, in the courses I observed, “interpersonal communication” was almost always expressed as self-disclosure. I saw very few instances of humor or emoticons. I suspect that this is related to the fact that most student interaction occurred in official and formal learning spaces, where it did not feel appropriate to use humor or emoticons. Instead of viewing the lack of humor and emoticons as problematic, I suggest we continue to prompt students to share their personal experiences because the students in this study suggest that self-disclosure was a perfectly sufficient and appropriate strategy for establishing social presence. Kassie explained, “you kind of feel like you’re all in this together. You are all kind of, like, helping each other out with certain things.” Kirk similarly noted that peer interaction gave him, “a feel for how other people are doing in the class. So it doesn’t just seem like it’s all just you by yourself.” Similarly, when I asked the students about the purpose of interacting with peers, they pointed to their instructor’s attempts to replicate the feel of a face-to-face classroom. Kassie said, “he is trying to make it seem like we are still … going to class.” Kirk noted, “you get more of a sense of, like, a classroom kind of thing.” The students suggest that they established a sufficient sense of togetherness to make the class feel “real,” which both reminded them to do their work and to made them feel like they were not alone. In other words, the students in this study experienced interpersonal communication as a positive aspect of social presence. The social presence the students describe is primarily in support of student satisfaction, which we recognize as an important goal of Principle 11. To investigate whether that social presence also supported collaborative learning, we need to look to open communication and group cohesion.

[46] 3.2.2 Open Communication

Garrison (2017) explains that open communication involves asking questions or expressing agreement and complimenting peers’ work. It can also involve continuing a discussion forum thread—instead of starting a new thread, replying to an existing thread demonstrates a continued conversation about the topic. Similarly, open communication can involve quoting from other students’ messages or referring explicitly to peers’ contributions to the course. Open communication is about exchanging ideas and engaging in a dialogue about the course content; as such, open communication moves beyond interpersonal communication in that students not only “feel real” to each other, but also share perspectives in support of learning. I saw two types of open communication excerpts in the data I collected—some were purely social expressions of agreement or compliments; others involved asking questions or making comments that might lead to the type of exchange that is required for cognitive presence.

[47] I only identified five examples of open communication in the data from Alex’s course, two of which were instances of agreement and three of which were conversation-starters. One of the agreement excerpts was included a forum post in the discussion about what platform to use for creating the presentation. Kassie wrote, “Hi all, I agree with both of you who have posted so far. A PowerPoint is a great and simple way to present our project.” The other agreement excerpt was a comment that Kassie made in the Google document about identifying with characters in the book: “I feel as if I too mostly identify with Wade Watts.” In these instances, Kassie agrees that PowerPoint is a good choice for creating the presentation, and she notes that, like her peers, she identifies with one of the characters in the book. These moments of agreement facilitate open communication by recognizing a relationship between the students and suggesting that the students are working together in the learning community.

[48] The conversation-starter open communication excerpts hold even more potential for facilitating collaborative learning. In the discussion about selecting a presentation tool, Kirk wrote, “I feel that powerpoint is going to be a huge friend to use in this project. … I am completely open to other ideas and suggestions though.” In this way, Kirk invites his peers to offer different ideas and suggestions, which could potentially push the students beyond agreement and into a discussion of the pros and cons of different tools. (In reality, that conversation did not happen; the students simply agreed to use PowerPoint.)

[49] In another instance, Kassie posted a comment in the forums about group roles. She had initially suggested that the group members all select a specific role to play in the group, but her peers were not open to this idea, preferring instead to have each group member contribute to all aspects of the project. In response, Kassie wrote, “I personally thought [group] roles would be beneficial for us in order to keep us organized and work equally distributed. … Since no one seems to want defined roles, we won't do them. I hope you guys will at least consider why I thought it might be a good idea though.” In this instance, Kassie directly invites a dialogue about the issue, illustrating open communication and the potential for the kinds of negotiation and discussion we associate with cognitive presence. However, her classmates did not respond to this post and the group did not adopt roles.

[50] The fact that there were fewer instances of open communication than of interpersonal communication in the data I analyzed, and the fact that the conversation-starter excerpts did not actualize into dialogue, indicate that the social presence students developed in this course may not have been supporting cognitive presence. The students felt real to each other and posted comments that show they were open to conversation, but the discussion forums or Google documents did not contain evidence of a conversation that involved negotiation and knowledge co-construction. I was able to make more sense of these findings in my analysis of group cohesion, which was the most frequent category of social presence that I observed.

[51] 3.2.3 Group Cohesion

Garrison (2017) argues that group cohesion is one of the most important elements in a community of inquiry because, “when students identify with the group and perceive themselves as part of a community of inquiry, the discourse, the sharing of meaning and the quality of learning outcomes will be optimized” (p. 46). Garrison further explains, “cohesive communication begins with … simple behavior such as addressing others by name. Group cohesion and association is taken to the next level by using inclusive pronouns such as ‘we’ and ‘our’” (p. 46). In Alex’s course, I coded 24 excerpts as “group cohesion.” The vast majority (n=22) of those excerpts were instances of students not only calling each other by name but also using inclusive pronouns.

[52] For example, in a discussion forum where students were determining the platform they would use to create their collaborative presentation, Kassie wrote, “Hi all, I agree with both of you who have posted so far. A PowerPoint is a great and simple way to present our project. I feel like this would be good, because we can do both group work, and individual work with it.” Kassie refers to the group as “we,” and identifies a common goal, presenting the project together. Interestingly, she also recognizes that this project will involve both “group work” and “individual work.” In another instance, when students posted potential project topics in a Google document, Kimberly wrote, “When I was reading the topics people posted I was surprised by how good and straight to the point they were. The biggest topic that stood out to me was cyberbullying, which is the topic I was leaning more towards.” In this instance, Kimberly does not directly use an inclusive pronoun, but she does state that she’s been reviewing “the topics people posted,” and she indicates that she is interested in a topic that one of her classmates suggested (cyberbullying). The students in Alex’s course actively referred to each other’s contributions to the discussion forums or Google documents as they made collective decisions on how to proceed with the project, which included logistical choices like what presentation software to use, as well as choices about how to focus the project. This finding suggests that collaborative group work is an effective strategy for increasing group cohesion, which is not surprising—group work directly and explicitly requires students to work toward a common goal.

[53] However, while the observation data from Alex’s course shows that the collaborative project facilitated group cohesion, the interview data tells a different story. When I asked Alex’s students about the group project, both Kassie and Kirk were clear on the fact that they did not benefit from interacting with their peers. Kassie explained,

I really wish that we didn’t have a group project online. … I basically did most of it by myself. And they just kind of, like, added some things, which was kind of frustrating. … And it was just really hard to get in contact with people. And I felt like we weren’t on the same page with everything.

Kassie ultimately explained that she enjoyed the assignment, but she felt she could have gotten just as much out of it if it were individual work. She even suggested that one way to revise the assignment would be to let each student contribute individual responses to the Google Document but not have to create one collaborative product at the end.

[54] Kirk similarly pointed to communication issues with his group members, and noted that he did the majority of the work for his group:

It was kind of difficult because we all had different schedules and it was just hard for us to find an even amount of work for us to all do to partake in the project. … One of my group members, we met in person twice. And the other one, we just met once. But, I don’t know. … They haven’t done much overall with it. … Honestly, I did probably the majority of it.

Kirk concluded that it would have been easier to have a collaborative writing assignment, “because we could have just said, like, hey it’s five pages. We each write a page and a half, then use the rest of the pages to link it together.”

[55] Both Kirk and Kassie established sufficient social presence with their groups to complete the project. Their peers felt real to them and they worked together in the ways that were required by the discussion forum and Google document activities. They used inclusive pronouns and asked questions and gave the appearance of working together. However, this collaboration was only surface-level. When it came to actually creating the collaborative presentation, the students individually contributed, with Kirk and Kassie both completing the bulk of the work for their groups. Furthermore, in the interviews, Kirk and Kassie each argued for making the project more individual. They enjoyed interacting with peers because it made them feel less isolated, but they did not also want to interact with peers in a joint effort to complete learning tasks. These findings suggest that the social presence in the course supported student satisfaction but not collaborative learning, despite the explicitly collaborative project design. If we want community in OWCs to support collaborative learning, we need more research on how to achieve that goal.

3.3 Cognitive Presence

[56] In the model of practical inquiry on which CoI is based, there are four categories of cognitive presence. The categories function as sequential phases, such that students first encounter a triggering event that pushes them to explore their own opinions and ideas. As they share their ideas and encounter their peers’ perspectives, they move into integration, when they combine their own ideas with the ideas of others to construct new knowledge. The final stage of practical inquiry is resolution, when students apply or test their new knowledge. The relationship between cognitive presence and Principle 11 rests in our definition of “foster[ing] student success.” If we want students to engage in collaborative learning as a result of the communities we develop online, then cognitive presence is a useful measurement of the extent to which that goal is met.

[57] Figure 4 illustrates the frequency of each cognitive presence category in Alex’s course. I looked for these categories by coding students’ contributions to Google documents and asynchronous discussion forums. Exploration was by far the most common category (n=35), with fewer instances of triggering events (n=11), and only one instance of integration. There were zero instances of resolution.

Figure 4: Cognitive Presence Categories Frequency, Alex’s Course

[58] There are some limitations with the coding method for Triggering Event and Resolution because I did not code the discussion forum prompts or assignment instructions (which would have included triggering events), nor did I code the presentations that the students composed (which would, in theory, contain resolution). Instead, I coded any instances of students expressing curiosity about the topic under discussion as Triggering Event, and I would have coded any instances of students describing ways in which they could test or apply knowledge as Resolution. The following sections offer more details on the codes associated with each category, and report on findings from the interviews to provide more insight into the students’ apparent lack of resolution.

[59] 3.3.1 Triggering Event

In the community of inquiry framework, the triggering event is the first phase of the four-phase process of practical inquiry. As students move through the four phases, they experience cognitive presence. Importantly, the triggering event must be something that sparks students’ curiosity, enough to prompt them to see the value in engaging in the kinds of dialogue and reflection that lead to knowledge construction. Warner (2016) describes this as “creating a problem or event to be studied that is intentionally puzzling, ambiguous, or even ill-structured” (p. 3). Because the triggering event exists at the beginning of the process, as the prompt that facilitates discussion, they are often located in assignment instructions. In Alex’s course, this would be the quest assignments and the instructions for the group project. I did not code those instructional artifacts for the cognitive presence categories, so my data on triggering events is limited. Another study, one that focuses more on the relationship between cognitive and teaching presence, might analyze the assignment prompts to determine if they qualify as triggering events.

[60] Because this study is more focused on student interaction and the relationship between social and cognitive presence, I coded for instances where students expressed curiosity in the discussion forums or Google Documents. I hoped to find examples of students grappling with something that might constitute a wicked problem, but did not. Instead, the excerpts I coded as “triggering events,” include moments when students expressed interest in the book or interest in the potential project topics. For example, one of Kirk’s group members wrote in a discussion forum, “I really like this novel and could not put it down.” In another forum, Kirk wrote, “I like the topic of identity and I think we can really dive into it in a lot of ways.” In yet another forum, Kassie indicated her interest in making the project “fun and creative”: “I think a video is a great way to present our project. Videos allow the authors to be creative and have fun, which shows in the final product.” In these instances, the students express interest in the project, which could create a foundation upon with practical inquiry could be built.

[61] The potential for practical inquiry was even greater when students expressed curiosity about or interest in something a peer wrote. For example, in a Google document about potential project topics, Kimberly wrote, “honestly, I can work with any of the topics we chose, they’re all really interesting to me.” These moments show the potential of moving from triggering event to exploration to integration, but that process only occurs if students engage in some kind of discussion about the ideas. As described later in this section, my analysis of the data revealed only one instance of integration. Nevertheless, there were multiple instances of triggering events, which implies that OWCs have the potential for functioning as communities of inquiry.

[62] 3.3.2 Exploration

Exploration occurred the most frequently of any of the cognitive presence categories. Garrison (2017) defines exploration as an information exchange, which might include brainstorming, suggestions, divergences, or intuitive leaps. In most instances, the students in this study were simply answering the questions they had been set, sharing information. Occasionally, they made suggestions or recommendations in their responses to peers, but I very rarely observed instances of divergence or intuitive leaps, which makes sense given that I found so little evidence of integration and resolution.

[63] An example of Alex’s students sharing information is when the students were describing the characters that they identified with. Kassie wrote, “The character in Ready Player One that I most identify with would have to be Wade. Wade is able to accomplish what he sets his mind to. I really appreciate his determination and commitment.” Kassie is sharing her perspective on the book and fulfilling the assignment criteria, but she is not also sharing that information in a way that suggests she is attempting to share information with her peers. Similarly, in the Google documents where students proposed potential project topics, Kimberly wrote, “Ready Player One is pretty video game based, with a decent amount of violence. A research subject for this book could be, do video games actually cause a child to be more violent?” In this case, Kimberly identifies a topic and suggests that it’s a topic she finds interesting, but does not acknowledge or directly address her peers.

[64] In contrast, the instances of exploration that included suggestions or recommendations did involve a direct address to classmates, which creates the kind of exploration that could evolve into integration. Not surprisingly, these excerpts were also coded for social presence. For example, in the topic proposal Google document, Kimberly wrote, “When I was reading the topics people posted I was surprised by how good and straight to the point they were. The biggest topic that stood out to me was cyberbullying, which is the topic I was leaning more towards. To narrow that down I want to do the effects (short-term and long-term) of cyber-bullying on the behaviors of the victims.” In this instance, Kimberly directs her comments to her peers, and makes recommendations as to how the group can move forward with the project. This excerpt is an example of the social presence category group cohesion because Kimberly is indicating that she views the group as working collaboratively towards a common goal. The excerpt is also an example of exploration because she makes a recommendation as to how the group can refine the topic idea. Potentially, if a peer responded to this comment and the group ultimately created a presentation that encompassed their collaboratively produced perspective on cyberbullying, then the students would have experienced integration and resolution.

[65] The final type of exploration excerpts I observed are those that indicate divergence, which I interpret as instances when students disagree with each other or make a comment that invites negotiation. I only observed one such instance in the data from Alex’s course, when Kassie wanted to create group roles and her classmates disagreed. Kassie wrote in the forums, “Since no one seems to want defined roles, we won't do them. I hope you guys will at least consider why I thought it might be a good idea though.” Kassie’s peers did not respond to this post; if they had, they might have engaged in a more substantive conversation that might have created a more productive group dynamic that facilitated critical inquiry and knowledge co-construction.

[66] I suspect that Alex’s students were more likely to share information than to make suggestions or engage in negotiation because they were not treating the forums or Google documents as spaces for discussing ideas. Instead, they seem to have approached the forums and documents as though they were individual assignments, to be graded by Alex. With that being the case, it is not surprising that the surface-level collaboration that students demonstrated in the online environment did not extend to collaborative knowledge construction in the PowerPoints they produced. In the language of the CoI Framework, the students’ exploration did not evolve into integration or resolution.

[67] 3.3.3 Integration

With that being said, there was one important exception when I did observe integration. Integration is the stage of practical inquiry in which students are not only sharing perspectives, but also actively building upon others’ ideas to co-create knowledge. In one instance, Alex’s collaborative group project facilitated this through a series of Google Documents. Students first identified potential themes for their group presentation in a “Thematic Themes” Google document, and then they were asked to narrow and focus those potential themes in a “Focused Topics” document.

[68] In the Focused Topics document, Kirk’s group engaged in this exchange:

Kirk: I like the topic of identity and I think we can really dive into it in a lot of ways. For instance I think that we could really focus on the why people change the way they look or act online. Is it because they are unhappy with the way they or because they are trying to fit a norm. This is just one branch we could go down obviously there is a lot to explore with this topic.

Kirk: Another way we could take this project is look at if it is possible for people to move to higher social classes without lying. For an example in the novel wade is extremely poor in real life and the only way he was really able to change his social standing was to completely change his identity.

Group Member 1: For friendship, we can look at how the people you have around you shape what and who you are. This can tie in with identity in that you change how you act around friends compared to around others.

Group Member 1: We could also look at how in somewhere like the Oasis we may not know if our friends are friends because everything is constructed. You can look at it like, you have what people are like in life vs what people have constructed as their identity in the Oasis and you don’t know what is real, making hard to know who you can be friends with and trust.

Group Member 2: Happiness can also tie into identity. How it can be so easy to appear happy, however, there are many times where that’s not the case. People pretending to be something/someone they aren’t just to appear “normal.”

Kirk suggests that the group focus their presentation on the topic of identity. His group members had each proposed different topics—friendship and happiness—which they now connect to identity. Group Member 1 notes that friendship can “tie in with identity in that you change how you act around friends,” and Group Member 2 states that happiness can connect with identity because sometimes people “pretend to be something/someone they aren’t just to appear ‘normal.’” The students contribute to and extend each other’s ideas in a way that could lead to knowledge co-construction. Whether or not knowledge construction occurs is measured by “resolution” in the community of inquiry framework.

[69] 3.3.4 Resolution

In this fourth and final phase of practical inquiry, students test and apply their ideas. In theory, there might be evidence of this resolution in the collaborative presentations, but I did not code the presentations. Another option is that students might have described testing and applying their ideas in the online forums or documents, but I did not observe this, either. Consequently, this discussion of Resolution relies on student interviews.

[70] When I asked Kassie about her experience with the collaborative project, she explained that, after she had started the presentation, her group members “basically, like, kind of jumped off my ideas and added a bunch of stuff, and since I’m horrible at works cited I just told them to do the works cited part. They did that, and added a bunch of slides, and they said, um, they didn’t really have, you know, that many ideas because I guess I put a lot of ideas in there.” Kassie’s partners added elements to the project, but they did not change her work and it does not seem that the group was integrating or co-constructing ideas. It is thus not surprising that, when I asked Kassie if she felt like she learned anything new as a result of interacting with her peers, she said, “not really.” Instead, she stressed that communicating with her peers was challenging and frustrating, and, in the end, she concluded, “I would’ve preferred for to do it alone. I think presentations are super easy and I was perfectly capable of doing it alone.” When students believe they could have accomplished the same tasks and learned the same things without interaction, it is highly unlikely that collaborative learning or knowledge co-construction (i.e., resolution) took place.

[71] Given the evidence of integration in Kirk’s group’s Google document, I expected to hear a more positive story from him. The interview confirmed that Kirk experienced integration, but it did not suggest that this integration evolved into resolution. When I asked about the Google document exchange that I coded as integration, Kirk explained that, after this exchange, he and one of his group members met up in person to discuss the project. The result was that they opted to go in a new direction, focusing on power and wealth instead of identity:

I was completely stuck on identity. I was just—with every assignment we had, I harped on identity. Just, what do you want to write about? Identity. What do you think about the book? Identity. And, uh, she said, power and wealth. And right away I was like, oh, that’s actually a really good topic. Let’s do that instead.

The online interactions and the in-person meeting suggest that Kirk’s group was on track to engage in collaborative learning. They were exchanging ideas and negotiating multiple perspectives to determine their project topic.

[72] However, the collaboration halted once the presentation topic was identified. After that, Kirk described a similar situation to Kassie. He started the presentation and did most of the work, with his classmates adding in elements at the end: “honestly, I did probably the majority of it. They added in, I think, three questions, or two questions, maybe. But I put up the entire format.” Ultimately, like Kassie, Kirk concluded, “I don’t think I learned too much from doing it with a group.” He further likened this to the process of writing a group paper: “that’s not really us interacting. It’s still my idea; write it down. They have their idea, and we get together just to do the paragraphs in between that transfer it into the next topic. … It’s not really like me learning from other people. It’s like, oh, I have to do less work.” For Kirk, the experience of interacting with peers was somewhat useful—they offered perspectives that shifted his thinking—but he is not describing a process of dialogue and reflection that facilitates practical inquiry and collaborative learning, and he is certainly not suggesting that interacting with peers resulted in knowledge co-construction.

[73] As with the findings related to the social presence categories, my analysis of the cognitive presence categories in Alex’s course suggest that there was potential for this OWC to function as a community of inquiry, and there is some evidence of cognitive presence in the forums and Google documents. However, the data does not suggest that the students engaged in the kinds of dialogue and reflection that characterize a community of inquiry. In relation to Principle 11, these findings suggest that we need to first determine if cognitive presence demonstrates the kinds of “student success” we aim to facilitate via community in an OWC; if so, we may need more strategies for helping students to move beyond exploration and into integration and resolution

4. Discussion: Implications for Online Writing Instructors

[74] The findings of this study suggest that, at least for these student participants, Hewett’s (2015) definition of the goal of Principle 11 has been achieved. The students felt a sense of community with their peers and their instructor, such that they felt engaged in and satisfied with the course. However, the students did not experience collaborative learning. The CoI Framework offers a useful vocabulary for describing aspects of the course that did or did not facilitate satisfaction and collaboration.

[75] The course I observed facilitated a strong teaching and social presence in support of student satisfaction. The “design and organization” (teaching presence) of the course involved clear expectations and an accessible instructor, which facilitated a positive student-instructor relationship. The “direct instruction” (teaching presence) in the course further established a teaching presence that helped the students feel connected to the instructor, especially in terms of instructor accessibility and frequent feedback. Additionally, the assignments and activities prompted students to share personal information and experiences, such that the students engaged in “interpersonal communication” (social presence) that facilitated a sense of community. In interviews, students reported that this sense of community helped them feel engaged in the course, which increased their motivation for learning and their satisfaction with the experience.

[76] While Alex’s course successfully developed community to facilitate student satisfaction, the findings of this study suggest that the course did not also facilitate collaborative learning. From a teaching presence perspective, “facilitating discourse” is a particularly important strategy for supporting collaboration because it involves directing students to interact with each other. In the course I observed, there were fewer instances of facilitating discourse than of direct instruction, implying that Alex was more likely to interact with students individually than to facilitate interactions between students. From a social presence perspective, Alex’s course lacked the levels of open communication and group cohesion required for collaborative learning. To increase open communication, online writing instructors might foreground the value of meaningful responses among classmates, as opposed to interacting because it is required for the course grade. To increase group cohesion, instructors might create activities that invite students to work together toward a common goal instead of co-existing in an online space where they work toward individual goals.

[77] From a cognitive presence perspective, the course I observed included “triggering events,” meaning the instructor created interesting activities that sparked students’ curiosity and prompted them to engage in “exploration.” However, the students’ exploration did not evolve into integration and resolution. The lack of integration and resolution supports the conclusion that the sense of community students developed was more in support of satisfaction than of collaboration. This is not to say that students did not engage in critical thinking or gain writing skills as a result of the course, but to say that they do not attribute that learning to peer interaction, and that there is little evidence of knowledge co-construction in the data. In other words, there was teaching-social presence and teaching-cognitive presence in the course, but not teaching-social-cognitive presence.

[78] Table 3 puts this CoI vocabulary in conversation with the Effective Practices associated with Principle 11, differentiating between categories/practices that facilitate student satisfaction and those that facilitate collaborative learning. In some cases, I have acknowledged a parallel between a CoI category and an effective practice; in other cases, I recommend adding or revising the current Principle 11 Effective Practices in light of CoI. You will also notice that Table 3 aligns several of the existing effective practices with the social and teaching presence categories of the CoI Framework; however, I have not aligned the OWI practices with cognitive presence. Instead, I recommend adding a new effective practice that addresses the development of cognitive presence.

Table 3: CoI Categories & Principle 11 Effective Practices to Facilitate Student Satisfaction and Collaborative Learning

CoI Category	Principle 11 Effective Practice
Categories & Effective Practices for Facilitating Collaborative Learning
Teaching Presence – Facilitating Discourse	Effective Practice 11.3: Instructors should set expectations about course objectives, assignments, and learning by communicating with students one-to-one and as a group, regularly and systematically, using both asynchronous and synchronous modalities.
Teaching Presence – Direct Instruction	Effective Practice 11.4: As with any composition course, teachers should respond to students’ formal projects in a timely manner that has been outlined clearly for students (see Effective Practice 3.12 ). Particular to OWI, however, they should employ the kinds of strategies suggested in Effective Practice 3.3 and Effective Practice 3.4 , and take advantage of the unique opportunities of the online environment as described in Effective Practice 3.2 .
Social Presence – Interpersonal Communication	OWI Effective Practices 11.6 and 11.7 are somewhat related interpersonal communication—they recommend that instructors seek “course-specific feedback on the OWI” from students (11.6) and create spaces for students “to express their experiences and to vent their frustrations” (11.7). However, the current OWI practices are more focused on the student-teacher relationship and student reflections on the learning experience than on the student-student relationship and student reflections on the course concepts. Consequently, I propose adding a new practice. Proposed Effective Practice: Instructors should design activities that prompt students to reflect on and share their personal experiences with peers. This might include prior knowledge of course concepts and experiences with the writing process.
Categories Effective Practices for Facilitating Student Satisfaction
CoI Category	Principle 11 Effective Practice
Teaching Presence – Facilitating Discourse	Effective Practice 11.1: OWCs should have no more than 20 registered students (see OWI Principle 9 ). Online environments have built-in community meeting spaces. However, classes larger than 20 make it difficult for students to know each other and each other’s writing, which often requires written personal attention to a large number of peer discourse opportunities. Furthermore, larger classes make personalized connections between teacher and students and among students and peers difficult. Additionally : To create personalized student-instructor and student-student connections, address students as a group and make recommendations of how students can interact with and learn from each other during collaborative activities.
Social Presence – Open Communication	Effective Practice 11.5: Informal student writing integrated in the course (e.g., asynchronous discussions, blogs, reading responses) should use the technological opportunities that most likely will elicit meaningful responses among class participants.
Social Presence – Group Cohesion	Effective Practice 11.2: OWC teachers should develop course community early by employing “icebreakers” and other activities that make use of the LMS and that engage student writing. Additionally : Instructors should continue to develop community throughout the course by creating activities that invite students to work together toward a common goal instead of co-existing in an online space where they work toward individual goals.
Cognitive Presence – Triggering Event, Exploration, Integration, and Resolution	Proposed Effective Practice: Instructors should create interactive activities that encourage students to share and explore multiple perspectives, and then create assignments that require students to integrate multiple perspectives into their writing.

4.1 Implications for Online Writing Researchers

[79] The fact that the students in this study were not functioning as a cohesive group engaged in a common inquiry project that required integration and resolution suggests a disconnect between social and cognitive presence. Worryingly, this disconnect existed even though the instructor asked students to engage in an explicitly collaborative project. Consequently, in addition using the CoI Framework as a vocabulary to describe the ways in which community building facilitates student satisfaction and collaborative learning, these findings imply that we need more research on the desired relationship between social and cognitive presence in OWI. Or, in the language of Principle 11, we need more conversations about the ways community development supports “student success” in terms of collaborative learning, and not just student satisfaction.

[80] My interest in collaboration as an outcome of community is rooted in composition scholarship that calls for collaborative pedagogy (e.g., Kennedy & Howard, 2014) and in composition practices that prioritize peer review (e.g., Wirtz, 2011), the sharing of multiple perspectives (e.g., Carillo, 2014), and collaborative writing (e.g., Kittle & Hicks, 2009). My concern is that, even in courses that deliberately design collaborative activities, like Alex’s group project, there appears to be a disconnect between instructor intentions and student experiences. One way to resolve that disconnect is to make collaborative learning an explicit goal that we discuss with our students in OWCs, and an explicit element of our scholarly discussions of Principle 11.

[81] Of course, the issue of collaboration as an outcome of community is not unique to online writing courses. The broader field of writing studies has grappled with defining “community” (e.g., Harris, 1989) and defining “collaboration” (Yancey & Spooner, 1998) for decades. However, it is the case that technology-mediated interactions have brought these questions into sharper focus. Online learning scholars’ conversations about what kinds of interactions are possible in mediated environments have pushed us to also consider what kinds of interactions are desirable. In fact, this conversation was the catalyst for the community of inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000). Additionally, while the findings of this study are not generalizable, the students I interviewed reported that they opted to take the course online because they believed that writing instruction did not require interaction. As Kirk put it, “this writing class, um, for this specific class I would say [peer interaction] is not 100% necessary. If we didn’t have any interaction, I would have got a similar, like, experience from it.” It may be the case that we have students in our OWCs who are predisposed to believe that writing, and learning to write, are not collaborative tasks. As such, questions about and discussions of community and collaboration are particularly important for OWI scholars and instructors.

5. Conclusion & Future Research

[82] This study applied the Community of Inquiry coding scheme to analyze online writing students’ interactions in discussion forums and Google documents, and then reported on student interviews to contextualize the observational data. The goal was to offer a rich qualitative account of OWI Principle 11 in practice, questioning the extent to which the OWC fostered community, and the outcomes of that community from students’ perspectives. The findings show that the students did develop a sense of community in their OWC, and that community enhanced their satisfaction with and engagement in the course. However, that community did not also facilitate collaborative learning.

[83] In future Principle 11 research, I advocate for differentiating between developing community in OWCs to support student satisfaction and developing community to support collaborative learning. I also suggest that we conceive of student satisfaction as a precursor to collaborative learning. To measure the extent to which community supports learning, I propose we conceive of online writing courses as communities of inquiry. The CoI Framework is a prominent theory in online learning and provides a useful vocabulary for understanding the extent to which students engage in collaborative learning online.

6. Acknowledgements

This work was supported by GSOLE’s Research Grants program.

7. References

Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 287-400.

Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.

Barrett, E. (1993). Collaboration in the electronic classroom. Technology Review, 96(2), 50-55.

Breuch, L.-A. K. (2005). Enhancing online collaboration: Virtual peer review in the writing classroom. In K. C. Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education: Global Questions, Local Answers (pp. 141-156). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.

Brunk-Chavez, B., & Miller, S. J. (2007). Decentered, disconnected, and digitized: The importance of shared space. Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Environments, 11(2).

Carillo, E. C. (2014). Teaching academic integrity and critical thinking through collaboration. In S. J. Corbett, M. LaFrance & T. Decker (Eds.), Peer pressure, peer power: Theory and practice in peer review and response for the writing classroom (pp. 65-76). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.

Carter, L. M., & Rukholm, E. (2008). A study of critical thinking, teacher–student interaction, and discipline-specific writing in an online educational setting for registered nurses. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39(3), 133-138.

CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2013). Position statement of principles and effective practices for OWI. National Council of the Teachers of English.

CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2017). Bedford bibliography of research in online writing instruction. Macmillan Community.

Condon, C., & Valverde, R. (2014). Increasing critical thinking in web-based graduate management courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 177-191.

Cox, S., Black, J., Heney, J., & Keith, M. (2015). Promoting teacher presence: Strategies for effective and efficient feedback to student writing online. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 42(4), 376-391.

Cunningham, J. M. (2015). Mechanizing people and pedagogy: Establishing social presence in the online classroom. Online Learning, 19(3), 34-47.

Garrison, R. D., 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.

Garrison, R. D. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Griffin, J., & Minter, D. (2013). The rise of the online writing classroom: Reflecting on the material conditions of college composition teaching. College Composition and Communication, 65(1), 140-163.

Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83-128.

Handayani, N. S. (2012). Emerging roles in scripted online collaborative writing in higher education context. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 370-379.

Harris, J. (1989). The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40(1), 11-22.

Hewett, B. L. (2015). Grounding principles of OWI. In B. L. Hewett & K. E. DePew (Eds.), Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction (pp. 33-92). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse.

Hruby, A., Mascle, D., & Trent, B. (2014). (BEG)ging the question: using online tools to support writing feedback. Kentucky English Bulletin, 63(2), 30-36.

Hubbard, D. (n.d.). Using a blog throughout a research writing course. OWI Open Resource, Conference on College Composition and Communication, www.ncte.org/cccc/owi-open-resource/blog-research-writing

Johnson, J. E., & Card, K. (2008). The effects of instructor and student immediacy behaviors in writing improvement and course satisfaction in a web-based undergraduate course. MountainRise, 4(2), 2-21.

Kennedy, K., & Howard, R. M. (2014). Collaborative writing, print to digital. In G. Tate, A. R. Taggart, K. Schick & H. B. Hessler (Eds.), A Guide to Composition Pedagogies (2nd ed., pp. 37-54). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kim, M.-J. (2016). Implementation of the community of inquiry model for a blended EFL writing course. English Language & Literature Teaching, 22(1), 85-114.

Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2009). Transforming the group paper with collaborative online writing. Pedagogy, 9(3), 525-536.

Laurinen, L. I., & Marttunen, M. J. (2007). Written arguments and collaborative speech acts in practising the argumentative power of language through chat debates. Computers and Composition, 24(3), 230-246.

Lo, H.-C. (2013). Design of online report writing based on constructive and cooperative learning for a course on traditional general physics experiments. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 380-391.

Mabrito, M. (2001). Facilitating interactivity in an online business writing course. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 81-86.

Morton-Standish, L. (2014). Using online media to write extended persuasive text. The Reader Teacher, 67(6), 419-429.

Murugaiah, P., & Thang, S. M. (2010). Development of interactive and reflective learning among Malaysian online distant learners: An ESL instructor’s experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 21-41.

Olson-Horswill, L. (2002). Online writing groups. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 30(2), 188-197.

Palmquist, M. E. (1993). Network-supported interaction in two writing classrooms. Computers and Composition, 10(4), 25-57.

Pittenger, A. L., & Olson-Kellogg, B. (2012). Leveraging learning technologies for collaborative writing in an online Pharmacotherapy course. Distance Education, 33(1), 61-80.

Qiu, M., et al. (2012). Online class size, note reading, note writing and collaborative discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 423-442.

Reilly, C., & L’Eplattenier, B. (1996). Redefining collaboration through the creation of World Wide Web sites. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 39(4), 215-233.

Rendahl, M., & Breuch, L.-A. K. (2013). Toward a complexity of online learning: Learners in online first-year writing. Computers and Composition, 30, 297-314.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R. D., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.

Simpson, K. P. (2006). Collaboration and critical thinking in online English courses. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 33(4), 421-429.

Stewart, Mary K. (2017). Communities of inquiry: A heuristic for designing and assessing interactive learning in technology-mediated FYC. Computers and Composition, 45, 67-84.

Tesdell, L. S. (2013). Innovation in the distributed technical communication classroom. In K. C. Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 257-269): Baywood.

Townsend, J. S., & Nail, A. (2011). Response, relationship, and revision: Learning to teach writing in asynchronous contexts. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 12(3), 51-85.

Walker, K. (2005). Activity theory and the online technical communication course: Assessing Quality in undergraduate instruction. In K. C. Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education: Global Questions, Local Answers (pp. 207-218): Baywood.

Walkington, H. (2012). Developing Dialogic Learning Space: The Case of Online Undergraduate Research Journals. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(4), 547-562.

Warner, A. G. (2016). Developing a Community of Inquiry in a Face-to-Face Class: How an Online Learning Framework Can Enrich Traditional Classroom Practice. Journal of Management Education, 1-21.

Wichadee, S. (2013). Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing ability of undergraduate student. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 260-270.

Wirtz, J. (2011). Writing courses live and die by the quality of peer review. In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative Learning and Writing: Essays on Using Small Groups in Teaching English and Composition (pp. 5-16). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Yancey, K. B., & Spooner, M. (1998). A single good mind: Collaboration, cooperation, and the writing self. College Composition and Communication, 49(1), 45-62.

Yang, Y.-F., & Wu, S.-P. (2011). A collective case study of online interaction patterns in text revisions. Educational Technology and Society, 14(2), 1-15.

Yagelski, R. P., & Powley, S. (1996). Virtual connections and real boundaries: Teaching writing and preparing writing teachers on the Internet. Computers and Composition, 13(25-36).

!webmaster account!