Unlike in previous years, the course instructors now took a more personal approach in setting the stage for the course expectations. As new material and topics were introduced, we created welcome messages online via the course pages, not just at the beginning but throughout each unit or week. Adopting an approach in which everyone in the course had different motivations to be present, we established similar bonds and interests in our class community. We also discussed the teaching philosophy, our preferred communication styles, and expectations moving forward. Moving forward, we championed the learners to share more from their own experiences as subject matter experts, especially in the context of Work Integrated Learning and Co-op, which would allow others to learn from their peers’ experiences. Throughout the course, our efforts attempted the three sub-categories described under the Community of Inquiry’s social presence (Garrison et al., 1999, p.89).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Teaching Presence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The course needed to ensure the design and curriculum were set and did not deviate from the syllabus. That started with our continued use of the University’s LMS tool, Brightspaces. In keeping with the ideology to be more present and approachable, we recorded biographies for the instruction staff that were personal and engaging and, in turn, suggested that students do the same. For the synchronous portion, when facilitators showed up to class, we encouraged participants to interact and connect by turning their webcams on and being present\u2014attempting to make it as close to a face-to-face classroom experience. Allowing students to regulate themselves online in this matter would strengthen the teaching presence in this particular COI (Vaughan et al., 2013). We also created a time management competency model for students to use at their discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following these strategies led us to believe it could present higher student satisfaction rates based on the perceived learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cognitive Presence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, in creating the content and curriculum, we needed to ensure that the students would engage with the material online. Here we used different technology and techniques that encourage engagement. We used iclickers in the class for quick polls and comments on topics and introduced a strictly online Video Interview assignment. The most significant indication of our cognitive presence is the use of weekly reflective questions posed to the students. Students connected ideas from the theory presented in class to their own experiences in the practical world; there were no right or wrong answers here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, looking back on our experience teaching this course under the lens of COI was an exciting exercise. Looking forward, ideas such as the need to create a more transparent rubric online are necessary, and an opportunity to let the students lead discussions more will allow us to tighten the ideas in the COI framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bates, T. (2009, July 5). Can you teach “real” engineering at a distance? | Tony Bates<\/em>. https:\/\/www.tonybates.ca\/2009\/07\/05\/can-you-teach-real-engineering-at-a-distance\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Garrison, Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87\u2013105. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S1096-7516(00)00016-6<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press.\u00a0Chapter 3: Facilitation<\/a>\u00a0(pp. 45-61).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0150\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/166\/2022\/09\/1-455x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0150\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/166\/2022\/09\/2-455x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n