Hi Swee Liang!
Thank you for your detailed outline! I like the way you are bringing the concepts to life by using them ‘on the ground’ – or, in this case, in the cloud and on the ground!
I am interested in your view on how Grasha and Reichmann’s taxonomy cross-references with the three presences, and, in particular, with the facilitation, direct instruction and design of teaching presence? And how might Grasha and Reichmann inform what the students do for their own teaching of themselves, support metacognition and for peer-teaching? That’s a lot of questions ;o) but your post really got me thinking!
May I share your post with students on my class on Teaching in Blended Environments at KTH Royal institute of technology in Sweden?
Cheers,
Marti
Hi Randy and all!
I see this as a great opportunity to discuss and consider the contribution the CoI has already made and could make in the transition to online learning environments. There is a custom in Sweden called ‘fika’, where people meet to debate the issues of the day, while having coffee and snacks. I hope this will become virtual fika for those of us involved in CoI research and implementation.
As one who has examined the notion of emotional presence in online environments, I can declare that our presumption was that, in empirical study, emotional presence would not emerge as a separate entity. In fact, we created items for measuring EP that related to possible overlap with the other three presences. So far, the evidence suggests partial overlap but also a distinct student and instructor experience focused on emotional response. But our work continues …. we are a very long way from suggesting a fourth presence.
We look forward to hearing your take on what’s been the benefit, and what is the future, for the CoI in research? How have you used the framework in your research?
MCI
