Ocena zachowania użytkowników platformy handlu C2C - E-mentor

Validating a Measurement Tool of Presence...presentation of a problem or a dilemma arising from aprevious inquiry. Part of this process is to clearly definethe problem or task. The second phase of practical inquiryis exploration. This is a crucial and time consumingprocess where students individually and collaborativelysearch for, and share, relevant material and ideas. Thethird phase, integration, is a reflective and convergentprocess where the focus is making connections andidentifying potential solutions. The final phase of theinquiry process is resolution or the identification andtesting of the most promising solution to the problemor dilemma (Garrison, et. al., 2001). In an educationalcontext, this is often done vicariously. However, it isimportant that resolutions are defended rationally orthrough application.One of the early challenges with this model wasunderstanding why students did not progress tothe integration and resolution phases (Garrison, et.al., 2001). Most of the discussion appeared at theexploration phase. More recently, there has emergedevidence that progression through the phases hasmore to do with teaching presence in the form ofdesigning tasks that require clear outcomes and thenfacilitating and directing online discussion to movetoward a resolution (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Ifthe goal and demand is for resolution, students willachieve this state. In addition, a recent unpublishedstudy has found much higher frequencies of integration(Akyol & Garrison, 2008), suggesting that thismay well be due to the nature of the task as well asto the maturity of the students.Context of the StudyAs previously noted, one of the challenges inutilizing the CoI framework has been the lack ofcommon methodologies and measures. Thoughprevious studies have addressed each of the presencesand two have addressed the CoI as a whole(Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2004; Arbaugh,2007), a common instrument has previously notbeen adopted throughout the online learning researchcommunity. In December of 2006, the authorsand colleagues from two other institutions beganwork on creating such an instrument. Commonalitiesbetween items in previous instruments werereconciled and, where appropriate, new items createdto fully capture each of the presences (Arbaugh,Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson,Shea & Swan, 2008). The resultant, 34 item instrumentwas administered at four institutions in theSummer of 2007.Participating institutions were located in the UnitedStates and Canada. Courses in which the surveyswere administered were in the areas of CurriculumTheory, Distance Education, Educational Leadership,Interdisciplinary Studies, a Master’s of Business Administrationcourse on Business Literature, TeacherEducation and Instructional Technology. Courses inwhich the survey was administered were at the Masterand Doctoral levels. 287 students volunteered tocomplete the survey, yielding a response rate of 43%,with per course response rates ranging from 6% to 93%.Participant ages ranged from 20 to 57. Data relatingto gender and ethnicity was not obtained.Though programmatic variations were present,courses at each of the institutions were designed anddelivered using the CoI as a conceptual and thematicbasis. In some instances this structure was prevalentin formalized training programs, while in others awarenessof the three presences informally guided bestpractice. From an instructional design perspective,such an approach translates into a recursive analysisof each of the three presences relative to desiredcourse objectives to insure optimal opportunities fortheir inclusion in subsequent design, development andimplementation; a process derivative of establishedgoal oriented design processes (Davidson-Shivers &Rasmussen, 2006; Gagne, Wager, Golas & Keller, 2004;Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2006).In organizing instructional components, utilizationof this process produced learning units in which overarchingtopics were addressed through multi-levelquestioning that provided for a triggering event vis-a--vis the cognitive presence framework. To supplementonline components, print and physically distributableelectronic media (e.g CD-ROM) were required foreach course.Using guidelines provided through effective applicationof the instructional design and organizationcomponent of teaching presence students were thenengaged in threaded discussions. Participation inthese discussions was given varying weight in determiningstudents’ final grade from course to course(with a range of 15% - 60% of the final grade accountedfor by participation in threaded discussions), with afew courses in which threaded discussions were not agradable component. In some instances, students alsoengaged in synchronous conferencing to supplementthreaded discussions. Regardless of the weight givento participation in threaded discussions or supplementalactivities, they were considered integral parts ofeach learning unit, subsequent artifact developmentand concurrent learning outcomes.Though establishing meaningful threaded discussionshas long been considered essential for cognitivescaffolding in online courses (Bender, 2003; Dixon,Kuhlhorst & Reiff, 2006; Pallof & Pratt, 1999; Salmon,2002), application of the CoI expands the role of discussionforums to include the establishment of socialpresence through student-student interactions that fosteropen communication, subsequent group cohesionand what Green (1971) terms collaborative knowledgeconstruction. As an example, a large majority of thediscussion prompts in education courses followed agroup-constructivist socio-epistemological orientation,thus producing an environment in which it was expectedthat responses would be open-ended in nature andallow for relatively risk-free collaborative processes tooccur (Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich, 2006; Phillips, Wells,Ice, Curtis & Kennedy, 2007). In the courses studied,this allowed students to move fluidly to the exploration,kwiecień 2008 91