Digital Identity in Online Learning

OLI Presence Learning in Action: An Observational Report on an Online Learning Environment

To further understand the community aspect of online learning, I analyzed a fully-online course titled “Theory of Rhetoric and Composition,” which was designed by Amanda Sladek, Ph.D. The course was established as a graduate-level class that “[explored] the multiple theoretical perspectives that situate and shape the study of rhetoric and writing” (Sladek, 2020). In analyzing Dr. Sladek’s course, I grounded my observations by focusing on Online Writing Instruction (OWI) Principle 11, which explains that “online writing teachers and their institutions should develop personalized and interpersonal online communities to foster student success” (NCTE, 2013). 

The course consisted of nine graduate students, as well as Dr. Sladek as the instructor. Students are greeted on the homepage of the course’s Canvas with a brief overview of the course, including hyperlinks to different pages within the Canvas that were vital information (i.e. syllabus, course schedule). The image below illustrates the front page setup of the Canvas:

Upon entering the first module, Sladek skillfully lays out the expectation for the course and includes some preliminary activities for students to build a sense of community. This course was held asynchronously online; however, Sladek outlines within the first module’s explanation that she offered an optional weekly Zoom meeting for students to collaborate online with each other. By including this option, Sladek is opening the door for students who need person-to-person interaction to enhance their learning, as well as allowing students to build community with their peers through video and voice rather than solely with discussion boards and other composition activities.

Looking further into the modules, students had the option to complete discussion boards through a variety of methods. Students were allowed to respond to their discussion board prompts either by written or auditory methods, allowing for more informal discourse to occur. In addition, students could conduct their responses to peers by using auditory or written replies as well. Some of the auditory responses were through video, which was quite impactful as peers could see the respondent flipping through their notes or referring directly to readings informally. The initial discussion boards in the course appeared to consist primarily of written responses by the students. Gradually though, more students began to do video/auditory replies, and this method began to create a deeper sense of community with students using each other’s names in discourse more frequently rather than solely citing texts from the respective module.

Many of the interactions found within the course were positive and progressively developed in a more informal discourse on the discussion boards. This development was meaningful in my observations as Principle 11 is grounded in establishing strong “interpersonal online communities” in these learning environments (NCTE, 2013). The course’s design seemed to promote social presence and cognitive presence above all else, possibly since teaching presence was more inferred through the shared interactions on discussion boards. The design appeared to be effective in establishing a solid online community based on how the discussion responses gradually developed into more personal analyses of the texts by hearing the student’s voices verbally.

In observing the course, Sladek (2020) seemed to have a profound understanding of the need for social presence in these asynchronous learning environments, and her craft was demonstrated by the increase in interpersonal and open communication (Stewart, 2018). The main recommendation I can provide for Sladek’s continuous improvement in online learning would be to possibly embed her explanatory videos at the start of each module that explain expectations rather than post them as hyperlinks (see figure 2 below):