Facilitating Cognitive Presence Online: Perception and Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we focus on perceived cognitive presence (CP) in three sections of an intermediate level English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course facilitated online. The researchers intend to demonstrate how lesson design, scaffolding, and a blend of synchronous and asynchronous delivery create perceived CP. Data was collected from the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008), administered to both student and instructor participants, as well as an analysis of the lesson plans. Focusing on the survey questions related to the four phases of CP, researchers assigned numerical values to responses reported by participants (cf. Arbaugh et al., 2008). Student participants consistently reported lower levels of CP than teachers in the triggering event and exploration phases. Student participants in two of the three sections also reported lower levels of the integration and resolution phases than the teacher, but students in the third section reported higher levels. Moreover, student-reported experiences of CP in all four phases, except the exploration phase, increased with each iteration of the lesson plan. In addition, we analyze the weekly lesson plans in relation to the four phases of CP. Results demonstrate the relationship between lesson plans and perceived CP and will help to inform best practices in online learning contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".