Introduction: This presentation will describe a segment of an ongoing study which aims to extend the findings of three recent exploratory studies examining Learning Presence, a new conceptual element in the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model which describes and explains self and co-regulatory behavior found among effective learners in online courses (Shea & Bidgerano, 2010; Shea, Hayes & Vickers, 2010; Shea, Hayes, Uzuner, Vickers, Wilde, Gozza-Cohen, & Jian, 2011). In 2000, Garrison, Anderson & Archer proposed a model of online learning called the CoI in which learning occurs through the interaction of students and their instructor and is manifested as three integrated elements that contribute to a successful online community: social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence. This research focused primarily on the analysis of online discussions. Shea, Hayes and Vickers (2011), when examining small group student collaborative work areas used to prepare an online class debate, found that some forms of student discourse could not be reliably coded using the existing CoI coding schemes for social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence. They suggested that online learners were engaged in behaviors and goals that were not accounted for within the framework when they were required to negotiate course logistics, assign group tasks, manage time and set goals to successfully compete collaborative projects When examined more closely, these online behaviors aligned with concepts of self-regulated learning in which students demonstrate, both individually and collectively, the skills and dispositions to become metacognitively, motivationally and behaviorally active participants in their own learning (Zimmerman, 1986). As a result, they proposed a new construct within the CoI model called Learning Presence, which reflects the exercise of personal agency and control in the service of self-regulated learning. It is adopted by students who marshal thoughts, emotions, motivations, behaviors and strategies in the service of successful online learning, holds promise of explaining more fully both the social and individual processes of knowledge construction in online environment (Shea, Hayes, Uzuner, Vickers, Wilde, Gozza-Cohen and Jian, 2011). Purpose and Research Questions: The purpose of this research is to extend and refine current understanding of learning presence by examining a broader array of online learning activities. We posed the following research questions: 1) Are there additional dimensions of LP beyond the three original elements -- forethought & planning, monitoring and strategy use -- that were initially identified in the original LP coding scheme? 2) To what extent is learning presence evident in non-collaborative learning activities, such as reflective journals, that are the result of individual student effort? 3) Using social network analysis, what types of patterns emerge among students who exhibit high and low levels of learning presence? Data Sources and Methods: This study uses quantitative content analysis to examine the online learning activities (reflective journals, discussions, and other group tasks) in a required doctoral level research methods course offered during Fall term 2010 at school of education at a state university in the northeast. Eighteen students were enrolled in this 15-week long blended course that combined three initial face-to-face meetings with eight modules of online learning activities. The data for this study were five of the seven assigned reflective journals that students posted in a public section of the course. In these journals, the students were instructed to include their thoughts, questions, comments, and concerns about the material that make up the readings list. For example, instructions for journals typically stated,"This journal should reflect a close reading of the chapters and papers and should include an "interior monologue" documenting ambiguities, interesting discussion points, and ideas that puzzled or intrigued you." In addition, students were required to comment on the entry of at least one other student who did not already have a response. Prior to coding, the two researchers who developed the original coding scheme sought to expand the strategy category, which was the least developed (Shea et al., 2011). They identified Zimmerman's cyclical phases of self-regulation and used this framework to refine the existing coding scheme (2000, 2008). These changes included: the creation of a new Performance category which encompassed existing indicators for monitoring and strategy Use; the addition of three new indicators to both the monitoring and strategy use indicators, and; the additional of a new Reflection category with two indicators. The researchers then used the revised coding scheme to test-code four discussions from a previous study and the first reflective journal from the current project. We found evidence of learning presence in all of the student reflective journals. When normalized, Module 3 (31.65) had the highest levels and Module 7 (13.29) the lowest of LP. Over the duration of the course, LP peaked in Module 3 and then declined. When examining the distribution of LP across all student reflective journals, indicators from the Performance category, which includes both monitoring and strategy use, predominated accounting for more than 75% of all LP: monitoring exceeded 51% of all indicators; strategy use, 25.3%; reflection, 20.5%; and forethought and planning, 3.2%. LP measures per student were also calculated using all five reflective journals. On average, students demonstrated nearly 8.9 occurrences of all LP indicators across the five assignments. Conclusions and Implications: Although two key outcomes of the CoI model are focused on online learning communities and group construction of knowledge, this study extends prior findings that LP is found in collaborative group activities,but is also evident in individual tasks, when students asked to reflect on their learning. Further, we found evidence of planning and forethought, monitoring, strategy use, and reflection, as suggested by Zimmerman's phases of SRL which was used to refine the LP coding scheme. The comparative measurement of individual student learning presence should provide an important piece in the puzzle to better understand how learners contribute and influence group knowledge construction. When combined with social network analysis in the next phase of this research project, we expect to uncover some of the roles and contributions of individual students, and identify those that may be pivotal to group co-regulation.
