The Creation of Adam, Salt Cathedral, Zipaquirá, Colombia. Photo by Jonathan Acuña
Teaching Presence vs. Teacher Presence in Online Teaching By Prof. Jonathan Acuña-Solano, M. Ed. School of English Faculty of Social Sciences Universidad Latina de Costa Rica Sunday, May 21, 2017 Post 314
“Teachers of online courses still need to maintain an environment conducive to learning and provide instruction that meets the needs of students from a wide range of backgrounds and levels of experience” [ CITATION Paw161 \l 1033 ]. But how is this “environment” leading to learning maintained in an online setting and also, how can one cater for all these “backgrounds and levels of experience” that are brought by all course participants to the a virtual learning environment (VLE)? No doubt, part of the answer to all this questioning can be found through one’s teaching and teacher presence when delivering a course. Learning in a virtual environment or in a brick-and-mortar classroom, as it has always happened, continues to be acquired in social contexts where a teaching figure is present along with at least a learner, and this teaching
character is meant to be present to signal the learner path to acquire knowledge. This teaching professional is present by means of an instructor’s teaching
presence and by his/her teacher presence as well. Though a learner may be detached from society –somehow-, knowledge is created for social consumption; information is about and/or linked to human beings making their learning socially-bound and then consumed (by humans) and consequently taught by this teaching figure. All this leads to understand that teachers are needed for the imperative of social interactions “conducive to learning” that “provide instruction” regardless of the kind of expertise held by learners. And in an online environment, though an instructor is not synchronously available for students at all times, the transference of knowledge happens because an instructional design of tasks (readings, reflections, videos, slideshows, and so on) has been executed to help learners assimilate information in a VLE bearing in mind the importance of learning in social contexts designed by the instructor or instructional designer. Teaching in an online context can be circumscribed to two educational constructs that can help us differentiate teachers’ roles in virtual learning environments: the former is teaching presence, and the latter is teacher
presence. So let’s explore what these two constructs really mean in terms of their individual connotations and how they cannot be considered synonyms when dealing with online education. What can be understood by teaching presence? Based on Pawan, Wiechart, Warren, & Park (2016), teaching presence includes what Rodgers & Raider-Roth (2006) labed as a) connection to self, b)
connection to students, and c) connection to subject matter and pedagogical knowledge. To have a better comprehension of what it is really meant by each of
these presence elements, let’s review the following chart where each of these constructs is briefly explained. Rodgers & Raider-Roth’s (2006) Teaching Construct
Pawan, Wiechart, Warren, & Park’s (2016) labels
Connection to Self
Authentic SelfProjection
Connection to Students
Psychological Connection
Pedagogical Knowledge
The Feedback Loop
Prof. Jonathan Acuña’s insight into the these constructs
Teaching as a projection of instructors themselves as both individual human beings detached from their career and as professionals within a given area of expertise they hold due to their jobs, which is part of their credentials for being course instructors Learning taking place as part of one’s relationship to others (learners) along with one’s ability to assume the viewpoint of these others (students) and see how the learning process takes place to provide guidance or assistance for knowledge construction in the minds of trainees Teachers’ understanding of the process of knowing the subject matter due to their expertise used to gain insight into students’ thinking and assimilation of new content to help them monitor and potentiate their own autonomous learning, develop skills to deal with course content and job responsibilities, and consolidate competences to be used in their daily professional (or even personal) life
Teaching Presence, Designed by Prof. Jonathan Acuña based on Pawan, Wiechart, Warren, & Park (2016)
On the other hand, after having reviewed the chart, teacher presence does not necessarily account for any of the above aspects but instruction alone. And as it has been seen, teaching presence is vital for an online virtual setting, as well for F2F classroom interactions, but teacher presence cannot be equated with teaching presence, and it cannot account for any deeper reflection on the content being studied. It is one’s teaching presence that helps us move learners into deeper reflective stages of assimilation and usage of content; our presence as teachers in terms of instructors is not going to help them move into deeper considerations of what they are learning and their ulterior application in their jobs. Moving into Deeper Reflection Do we want our learners to just be in an exploration mode while dealing with content in a VLE? Without proper teaching presence, students in an online environment do not necessarily feel motivated to go deeper into the exploration of the subject-matter being stated. Based on Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001, also quoted by Pawan, Wiechart, Warren, & Park, 2016), “often students will be more comfortable remaining in a continuous exploration mode; therefore, teaching presence is essential in moving the process to more advanced stages of critical thinking and cognitive development.” If an instructor is just there exercising his/her teacher presence (instruction), it does not necessarily mean that learners will go deeper into topics, theories, and ideas after being introduced to them by an instructor; they need to be pushed by other means to take the quantum leap into the “real” integration and resolution associated with the subject-matter covered in class (or in a course). To conclude, teacher presence is not enough to activitate learners’ cognitive interaction with new content to do into deeper critical and proactive thinking of new content.
Teaching Presence
Triggering
Explanation
Integration
Resolution
Practical Inquiry Model Stage Description Instructor’s design of activity introduces a new topic / concept / idea to be considered by participants for later application in course tasks. This usually comes with a supply of bibliography to be read, analyzed, and understood by course learners. Participants cognitively interact with content in a series of tasks such as forum discussions and debates where the sharing of ideas and collaboration to build their knowledge are implied. Learners are meant to participate in discussions seeing the pros and cons of using these new data. Through the collaborative process, participants incorporate the new concepts along with ideas shared by peers in innovative ways to make meaningful use of new knowledge. The generation of new ideas can trigger new, positive, and proactive used of new information in their areas of expertise. Participants are asked to get proactive in the use of their new knowledge by incorporating it into their daily working life. As part of their deeper critical and cognitive reflections with content, learners see the potential uses of new data in their current working processes to improve them.
Teaching Presence, Designed by Prof. Jonathan Acuña based on Pawan, Wiechart, Warren, & Park (2016)
As conceived by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001, also quoted by Pawan, Wiechart, Warren, & Park, 2016), a way to deal with this surface exploration of topics is by means of their Practical Inquiry Model (PIM). PIM components, as shown in the table above, are a necessity in online education where, for instance, the instructional design includes parcipation in forums to move participants to deeper critical, and cognitive reflections on what is being studied. A mere teacher presence, which –as stated above- accounts only for instruction, does not push learners into a real reflection on course content to
integrate it into their way of working and to proactively use it to (re)solve problems they can face at work or just to simply improve the existant processes. Some Concluding Remarks “The concept of presence in teaching has not often been taught in teacher education programs (Liston, 1995), largely because it is difficult to define and concretely demonstrate” [ CITATION Paw161 \l 1033 ]. Though elusive as it seems to be, teaching and teacher presence are constructs that must be clearly defined to help virtual instructors to better deal with students in online learning settings. What Rodgers & Raider-Roth (2006) defined as teaching presence, which includes connection to self, connection to students, and connection to
subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, is an imperative in the search for more deeper and critical participation of students in online education. Its ulterior assocation with Garrsion, Anderson, & Archer’s (2001) PIM is an excellent element that can be used to spice up any instructional design model that can be used to create learning tasks for students in virtual learning environments. Finally, making room to find the difference between teaching and teacher presence is another must in the pedagogical implications of one’s presences in online education. Instruction, or teacher presence, is not enough to trigger student critical and cognitive reflections on the subject-matter but how those reflections can be used for proactive uses of content in their areas of expertise at work.
References Garrsion, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computre Referencing in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education 15(1), 7-25. Pawan, F., Wiechart, K., Warren, A., & Park, J. (2016). Pedagogy & Practice for Online English Language Teacher Education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Rodgers, C., & Raider-Roth, M. (2006). Presence in Teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 265-287.