Online Teaching in International Contexts Towards a Sociocultural Perspective of Teaching Presence

1. Online Teaching in International ContextsTowards a Sociocultural Perspective of Teaching Presence Tannis Morgan University of British Columbia/BCIT

2. Background • Started out as a study on social presence • Student feedback was pointing to importance of teaching presence • Why were both ‘sages on stage’ and ‘guides on side’ getting good feedback in some cases?

3. Background • Started out using COI tool • Began doing interviews for triangulation • Narrative around the ‘why’s’ of instructor posts was very interesting • Began recording my own ‘think aloud’ for my instructor interactions

4. Background • How to get at the ‘why’s’ of teaching presence? • Tsang (2004) and ‘interactive decisions’

5. Sociocultural frameworks • At same time… • Kecia Lim’s dissertation--marginalization of some NNSE students • Naoko Morita and NNSE students in f2f contexts • Both adopted sociocultural frameworks

6. Research questions 1. How do instructors negotiate their teaching presence in online contexts? 2. What are the constraints and affordances that influence this negotiation?

7. Theoretical Framework-Activity Theory (Engestrom, 1987)

8. Instructor Activity System

9. Rationale “By taking account of the interactions between people involved in the activity, structures within which the activity takes place, conventions on which it is based and artefacts used (here, teaching tools and methods), I was able to ground my study in the broad context and capture practice as socially situated, rather than simply evidenced in actions or performance.” (Fanghanel, 2004, p. 579)

10. Additional concepts • Identity (Norton, 2000; Duff & Uchida, 1997) • Positioning (Harre & van Langenhove, 1998) • Global contact zones (Singh and Doherty, 2004)

11. Methodology • Adopted Activity Theory as framework therefore certain methodological implications • Multi-case study with cross case analysis (Stake, 2006) as methodology

12. Cases • Six “Cases of” instructor teaching presence • Unit of analysis: courses they were teaching

13. Data • 2-3 interviews with instructor • Forum transcripts • Course documents • Interviews with program directors • Interview with co-instructor • *student course evaluations • *student questionnaire

14. Triangulation • Multiple sources of data • Minimum 2 sources of evidence for each claim • Member checking • Peer debriefing

15. Context 1. Masters of Education-Canadian University

16. Context 2. Online Academy-Eastern Europe

17. Context 3. Masters of DE-South America

19. Cross case findings • Conceptualization of interaction and teaching presence • Identities and positioning influenced teaching presence • Tools--language and technology shaped teaching presence • Community--negotiation of TP occurred at level of students and co-instructors • Rules/division of labour--course design shaped teaching presence • Agency--evident in all cases

20. Conceptualization of interaction and teaching presence • How instructor viewed purpose and goals of the interaction spaces • Tannis--develop community • Linda--activity space • William--online graduate seminar and individualized teaching • Daniel--”felt like” an online classroom • Joanne--community in the making • John--online classroom

21. William William--247 posts/3 weeks 11 students--1094/3weeks Least active student: 35 Most active student: 127

22. William • Conceptualization--online graduate seminar • Realizing constructivism through highly individualized teaching (constraint--extremely time consuming) • Influenced by beliefs about teaching and learning

23. William--Course design • Syllabus, schedule of readings, 2 class texts • Discussion forum--1 topic only • Key element--development of a language-culture autobiography

24. Identity • Duff and Uchida (1997) “Teachers perceptions of their sociocultural identities were found to be deeply rooted in their personal histories, based on past educational, professional, and (cross-) cultural experiences” (p. 460).

25. Instructor identities • Daniel--engaged participant • Joanne--adult educator • John--class leader • Linda--expert guide • William--knowledgeable professor • Tannis--community builder

26. Identities in conflict • Daniel--’illegitimate’ positioning • Joanne--invested as course author • John--positioned by co-instructor into subordinate role • William--authoritarian instructor • Linda--non-participation of students • Tannis--’illegitimate’ positioning

27. John • Class leader, help students through the activities of the course • Co-instructor emerged as dominant instructor • Pronouns ‘I’ not ‘We’ • Not cc’d on emails • Co-instructor quicker to respond in DF

28. Marginalized but engaged in some counter-positioning “… I felt a responsibility and I looked for my [opportunities] and tried to make contributions either big or little just to have a voice because whether they viewed me as secondary or not I thought it was my responsibility to post and make contributions where I could.” “So in the end I viewed my role more as facilitator trying to draw people out, having input, and certainly putting my two cents here and there”.

29. John’s postings

30. Language and teaching presence • William--inclusion of language-culture autobiography to position NNSE as experts • Linda--L1 & L2 resulted in different perception of teaching presence, closely tied to identity • Tannis--L2 created tension with way I was positioned

31. Linda • Online Academy in L2 (English) • Metropolitan University in L1 (Spanish) • Ideal opportunity to compare how language of instruction influences teaching presence

32. Metropolitan University “Coming from [Latin America] and knowing the language I felt this commitment to model and provide the best approach to the [South Americans] (not that I wasn’t doing it in the Online Academy) just because I have some kind patriotic or national or language relationship with those people and I felt that I had a stronger bond with the participants”.

33. You might see in my messages [a bit] of who I am but my messages are half of what I think. Sometimes in English I come with an idea and I don’t have the perfect English word so I step out of it and don’t put it in. … In Spanish I never come up to that, there is always a word that I can find. Sometimes it is not that I don’t find the word it is that I don’t know how to write it or spell it and that just deters me from writing and that stays out of my posting. So I do believe that my postings in Spanish are much more direct and much more humourous or much more who I am than in English.

34. Technology • Linda and Tannis--constraints of CMS changed teaching presence to more teacher-centred interaction • Tannis--illegitimate positioning--”primary tutor” • Daniel--transferred weblog practices

35. Summary • Instructors draw on resources, and make adjustments to the division of labour to address tensions and constraints • Instructors in same course can experience different tensions • Teaching presence is influenced by linguistic constraints • Technology was both a constraint and a resource • Identity, positioning, and conceptualization of the interaction spaces were intertwined as influences in the negotiation of teaching presence

36. Sociocultural definition of teaching presence • The negotiation of instructor interactions within a mediated context with the object of attending to student learning.

37. Conclusion • Best practices?

38. References • Anderson, T., Rourke. L., Garrison, R., Archer,W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. • Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43-63. • Duff, P. and Uchida, Y. (1997). He negotiation of teachers' sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 451-486. • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). • Fanganel, J. (2004). Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 575-590. • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. • Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573-604. • Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. London: Longman. • Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. Tsang, W. K. (2004). Teacher’s personal practical knowledge and interactive decisions. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 163-198.

39. Photo credits • Rustmanhttp://flickr.com/photos/russmorris/ • Jeff Bauche http://flickr.com/photos/jeff-bauche/ • Queropere http://www.flickr.com/photos/pquero/756112579/