Métodos e instrumentos de recogida de información

At this stage in educational theory, the teacher is no longer the central and focal point of a learning environment, yet the role of a teacher still remains fundamental in all the different teaching and learning theories. There has been a shift from teacher-centred learning environments to one that is more students-centred due to the influence of constructivist theories.

A variety of methods have arisen over the last decade or so that take into consideration students’ behavioural attitudes towards their learning experience (Mayer, 2004). Such methods are listed by Baeten et. al. (2010: p.245) and include collaborative/cooperative learning (Slavin, 1980, 1988, 1995; Zimmerman, 1999; Dillenbourg, 1999; McInnerney and Roberts, 2004), open-ended learning (Hannafin et al., 1994, 1997; Land, 2000), project-based learning (Land, 2000; Keegan and Turner, 2001; Scarbrough et. al., 2004), powerful learning environments (De Corte, 1990), problem-based learning (Savery and Duffy, 1995; Savin-Baden, 2001; Savin-Baden and Major, 2004; Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003), student-activating teaching methods (Struyven et al., 2006), minimal guidance approach (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), discovery learning (Van Joolingen, 1999; Mayer, 2004), and case-based learning (Kolodner and Guzdial, 2000; Ellis, Marcus, & Taylor, 2005). All these methods provide various options for relationships to develop between the learner/ teacher/ content. Some imply more interaction amongst the students themselves (collaborative learning), others less guided by the teacher (open-ended learning) and some methods give students real situations and leave them to come to a solution (problem-based learning). Each one however has the aim of making the most of students’ own drive to learn which, in turn, alters the roles teachers play in each of these methods. Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) explicitly discuss the role of teachers in modern-day HE:

it is the teacher’s responsibility to precipitate and facilitate learning that has purpose and is focused on essential concepts and worthwhile goals (p.48).

In b-learning and in CoI specifically, teachers take on the roles of course designers of the course and learning environment, of facilitators of communication and the learning experience, certifying that everyone has the necessary competences to participate, and of experts in the field of the course being taught. As Garrison and Vaughan point out:

Teaching presence is essential to provide structure, facilitation and direction for the cohesion, balance and progression of the inquiry process (2008: p.24).

Perry and Edwards (2005) state that ‘exemplary online teachers create a community of inquiry that is comprised of a strong social, cognitive and teaching presence’ (in Garrison and Vaughan, 2008: p.25). Teachers are thus responsible for the whole structure and the diverse elements that make up CoI and students have expectations too in relation to competent design of the learning experience. Garrison and Vaughan have come to the conclusion, after years of experience, that students expect a strong teaching presence (p.25).

In relation to the characteristics of the teaching presence provided by Garrison and Vaughan (2008) and Garrison et. al. (2010), namely ‘design and administration, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction’, these terms have evolved into different terms depending on the perspectives of the researchers dealing with them. Berge (1995) referred to them as ‘Managerial, Social, Pedagogical’ and added ‘Technical’, whereas Paulsen and Feldman (1995) designated the characteristics as ‘Organisational, Social and Intellectual’. Anderson et. al. (2001) opted for ‘Instructional Design and Organisation, Facilitating discourse and Direct Instruction’. This shows that despite the perspectives and attempts to alter the denominations, most researchers agree with the meaning behind these 3 major characteristics of ‘teaching presence’.

Choosing, organising and preparing the course content implies many hours of research including well thought out objectives that aim at effective learning outcomes. According to Coppola et. al. (2001), “the ability to create, maintain, and control space (whatever we call it - virtual, nonplace, network) links us to notions of power and necessarily to issues of authority, dominance, submission, rebellion, and cooperation” (in Anderson et. al., 2001: p.5). These help define the roles of both teachers and students, emphasising the power relations that the teachers also need to think about and then try to maintain. However the roles taken on by teachers and students are not always unchanging as my data will show. There are times when roles are swapped between teachers and students and other moments when roles show their dynamism by their asymmetry. The learning and teaching context and the engagement with content determines changes in power, depending on the participants that feel they possess knowledge that can make them take on the role of ‘expert’ at a particular moment of interaction.

In terms of design and organisation, Anderson et. al. (2001) divide this component of Teacher presence into 5 particular tasks:

 Setting Curriculum

 Designing Methods

 Establishing Time Parameters

 Utilising Medium Effectively and

 Establishing Netiquette

In order for the component of design and organisation to be responsibly carried out, the teacher needs to focus on redesigning materials and activities and readapting them to the medium being used. The negotiation of time lines for projects also is of the essence if an online/ b-learning experience is to be set up and actually succeed in learning outcomes for the students. These time lines enable students to feel ‘in synch’ with the rest of the

class and thus help to create a unified group with common goals, thus fulfilling the ultimate aims of CoI. Anderson et. al. also account for the importance teacher presence has when students are involved in the course and the work it involves.

We concur with Laurillard, Stratfold, Lukin, Plowman and Taylor that the teacher’s task is to create a narrative path through the mediated instruction and activity set such that students are aware of the explicit and implicit learning goals and activities in which they participate. Macro-level comments about course process and content are thus an important

motivation and orientation component of this category of teaching presence (2001: p.6).

Facilitating Discourse is seen by Anderson et. al. to be an intricate part of Teaching Presence as the teacher needs to find a balance whilst moderating to motivate and guide students in their interactions. Under the understanding that the teacher has to be an active member of the social community, this role indicates an intricate need to be constantly interacting with the students on forums and guiding the learning experience towards the intended goals. Garrison and Vaughan also make reference to the importance of the ‘facilitation of discourse’ as he sees its goal is ‘to enhance and sustain social presence that will provide the environment for collaborative and cohesive discourse’ (2008: p.38). Providing feedback is one the most important ways for the teacher to facilitate discourse. It not only shows the teacher’s interest and presence but also provides essential guidelines towards the ‘focus on the shared purpose of the learning experience’ (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008: p.39). These authors do not hide that they believe that ‘as CoI moves to more challenging cognitive activities, facilitation becomes increasingly important to ensure that students’ contributions are acknowledged and constructive’ (2008: p.41).

Anderson et al. (2001) explain how their notion of facilitating discourse is actually very closely linked to direct instruction as it occurs to ‘stimulate the social process’ (p.7).

Thus, their coding of facilitating discourse indicators cover a wide array: ‘Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement; Seeking to reach consensus/understanding; Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions; Setting climate for learning; Drawing in participants, prompting discussion and assess the efficacy of the process’ (ibid.).

The third element related to Teaching Presence is Direct Instruction. This is seen as pedagogic and educational leadership, whereby the content is structured and/or scaffolded. However, direct instruction is done in such a way that students still feel the freedom to choose what they want to learn and how they want to do it. Vaughan and Garrison (2005) give major emphasis to the need for ‘strong leadership to ensure that discussions stay ‘on task and on track’’ (Garrison, 2008: p.43). Yet they appeal to a balance of teacher’s direct intervention as they believe that in excess, it ‘will most assuredly reduce discourse and collaboration’ (ibid.).

Teachers need to show knowledge of the content being taught and Anderson et. al. (2001) also emphasise how the teacher’s enthusiasm and in-depth knowledge can help stimulate students’ interest. Garrison and Vaughan remind us that the purpose of direct instruction is to maintain ‘purpose and cohesion’ as these ‘provide the motivation for participants to want to belong to a community’ (2008: p.44). Vygotsky’s notion of scaffolding enhances the teacher’s role of higher hierarchy as an expert in terms of knowledge. Teachers can thus offer support to enable students to scaffold their knowledge acquisition.

Finding a balance when giving direct instructions can be quite delicate. As these communities need freedom of choice, it can be easy to slip from student-centred practices to teacher-centred practices if the teacher’s role become domineering. Seeing as so much is required of the teacher to keep this learning experience geared towards the

learning aims, it can be quite difficult to obtain the desired balance. Salmon (2000) refers to ‘e-moderators’ as facilitators and moderators that do not need to be experts in the subject matter, but need to be able to communicate on the same level as the participants about the issues being discussed. However, Anderson et. al. (2001) disagree with this perspective.

This subject matter expert is expected to provide direct instruction by interjecting comments, referring students to information resources, and organizing activities that allow the students to construct the content in their own minds and personal contexts (p.9).

When looking at direct instruction, assessment and feedback are elements that are part and parcel of the educational experience. Garrison and Vaughan (2008) point out how important it is to ‘ensure assessment is congruent with the intended learning outcomes’ (p.46). As the assessment process is essential to any learning experience, as we know it today, students value the teachers’ role and expect useful feedback from them, as Anderson et. al. point out. Assessment online might include papers, essays, portfolios, projects, reports, practice tests and self-assessment tests. Feedback includes corrections, explanations, teacher’s summaries, points of view, links and resources for further information.

Anderson et. al. (2001) summarise the above with coding for direct instruction:

 present content/questions,

 focus the discussion on specific issues,

 summarize the discussion,

 confirm understanding through assessment and explanatory feedback,

 diagnose misconceptions,

 inject knowledge from diverse sources, e.g., textbook, articles, internet, personal experiences (includes pointers to resources),

Together with the two above-mentioned presences in CoI, learning is not complete without Cognitive Presence.