This study examined student perceptions of teaching presence and communication timeliness in asynchronous online courses. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's (2000) community of inquiry model provided the framework for the survey research methodology used. Participants were 59 student volunteers taking 1 or more asynchronous online graduate courses. Communication data showed the instructor mean communication timeliness for each of the 7 course groups. Five courses had a neutral level of perceived teaching presence, and 2 courses had a perceived teaching presence mean higher than the neutral range. The 2 classes with the greatest amount of time elapsing between communications also had the lowest mean teaching presence scores. Findings suggest further research regarding teaching presence and communication timeliness is warranted.
Introduction
The benefits and drawbacks of online distance education have become an important aspect of research (Hismanoglu, 2011; Perry, 2008; Saadé, He, & Kira, 2007; Schwartzman, 2006; Subramanian, 2006). Online distance education environments are continually available to both student and faculty participants every hour of every day and can lead to students and faculty interacting with the course environment and each other at unspecified times. The time taken to respond to these asynchronous communication attempts is referred to as communication timeliness.
The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between student perceptions of teaching presence and communication timeliness of instructors in online courses. Student perceptions of teaching presence were gathered using an anonymous online survey, the Teaching Presence Survey (TPS), framed by the community of inquiry model. In this study the time taken by instructors to provide direct feedback to students' assignments was referred to as communication timeliness. Communication timeliness data between the students and instructors was gathered from the college's course management system archive. These data were used to determine the hourly average (mean) instructor communication timeliness for each course group. Teaching presence scores and the mean instructor communication timeliness were used as the variables in the Pearson r to determine if a relationship existed.
The framework of this study was the community of inquiry model. The community of inquiry model integrates three elements: teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence (Garrison et al., 2000). Teaching presence was the focus of the study and utilized separately from the other elements. The teaching presence element of the community of inquiry model can be used to analyze the interactions between instructors and students. Teaching presence is described as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes that develop meaningful and relevant learning outcomes (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).
The following questions were formulated to determine the relationship between student perceptions of teaching presence and communication timeliness of instructors in online courses:
What are student perceptions of teaching presence in asynchronous online courses?
What is the communication timeliness of instructors for direct feedback on students' assignments?
What is the relationship between instructor communication timeliness for direct feedback on students' assignments and student perceptions of teaching presence?
The TPS has been used with success to gather perceptions of teaching presence in distance education environments (Garrison et al., 2000; Swan et al., 2008). Swan et al. (2008) found the teaching presence element indicators of the community of inquiry to have a Cronbach's alpha reliability of 0.94. Swan et al. validated the community of inquiry survey element of teaching presence, noting the indicators of this element are internally consistent.
Perceptions of communication in online distance education environments had been studied separately for student and instructor participant groups (Kuskis, 2006; Lyons, 2004; MacLean, 2004). Student perceptions of communication occurring within an asynchronous online environment often rely on interactions with the instructor (MacLean, 2004; Savery, 2005; Yen & Abdous, 2011). Student communication with the instructor that is delayed may negatively affect student perceptions of the online learning environment (Baker, 2010).
Instructor communication often focuses on maintaining a high level of presence within the online distance education environment. It is considered an effective pedagogical practice for instructors to share their communication expectations with students at the beginning of an online distance education course (Kuskis, 2006). Student interaction with an instructor aids in establishing perceptions of teaching presence based upon the design and organization, facilitation of discourse, and direct instruction provided by the instructor (Garrison et al., 2000).
Methodology
Study participants were 59 online students in seven online courses from a western college. The study took place in two phases: Phase 1, in which student participants completed an online questionnaire which gathered student perceptions of teaching presence during the second session of the fall 2011 term; and Phase 2, in which communication timeliness data were gathered from the course management system archive by the researcher after the fall 2011 term concluded.
The TPS was comprised of three sections: a consent form; demographic questions; and 13 items measuring teaching presence. Teaching presence mean scores were calculated from the sum of the 13 items using a 5-point Likert scale. The scale utilized a scoring range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for each of the 13 items. Means closer to 1 showed less perceived teaching presence while means closer to 5 showed more perceived teaching presence. Means between 2.5 and 3.5 were considered neutral.
Participant teaching presence data were used to answer the first question. Researchergathered communication timeliness data from the course management system archive were used to answer the second research question. Limitations in the data collection process precluded the third research question from being answered and no (0) Pearson r relationship was found between the two variables of the study, teaching presence and communication timeliness.
Findings
The TPS was completed by 59 of the 111 available students, yielding a response rate of 53%. Demographic characteristics of participants for this setting are as follows: 37 participants (63%) were female, 32 participants (54%) ranged in age between 26-35 years, 33 participants (56%) were Caucasian, 34 participants (58%) were single, 40 participants (68%) did not have children living at home with them, 36 participants (61%) were part-time students, 35 participants (59%) estimated their level of computer expertise to be intermediate, and 21 participants (36%) had taken 5 or more online courses as a student.
Student Perceptions of Online Teaching Presence
Teaching presence composite scores for students were averaged for each of the seven course groups. Five courses had a neutral level of perceived teaching presence: Course B, 3.25; Course C, 3.12; Course D, 3.45; Course F, 3.42; and Course G, 3.02. Each of these courses scores were between 2.5 and 3.5, the neutral indicator. Course A and Course E had a perceived teaching presence mean higher than the neutral range with 3.75 and 3.66, respectively.
Instructor Communication Timeliness for Direct Feedback
For the purpose of the study, communication timeliness was related to the instructor's direct feedback to students' assignments. Data were gathered for every student enrolled in each of the seven courses as well as for the instructors during the eight weeks of instruction in the fall 2011 term.
Communication timeliness was calculated according to the number of hours it took an instructor to respond with feedback to a student's submitted work (i.e., hours per response). The mean number of hours per response, per group, were as follows: Course A, 20.29; Course B, 20.21; Course C, 49.02; Course D, 23.89; Course E, 11.41; Course F, 25.40; and Course G, 83.22.
The times of day of students' submissions and of instructors' responses were also gathered. The data showed that, on average, students' submitted assignments to the instructors between the hours of 4 PM and 7 PM; and the time of day for instructors' responses ranged from 1 PM to 7 PM.
Relationship Between Teaching Presence and Communication Timeliness
The data collection process of this study involved anonymous TPS responses separated by course group and used as the first variable for the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). The mean communication timeliness data for each of the seven courses was used as the second variable. The use of anonymous data collection precluded the determination of a relationship between the variables and resulted in no (0) correlation for each course across the setting.
Discussion
Quantitative data were collected in two phases: Phase 1, student participants completed online teaching presence questionnaire; and Phase 2, course management system archive used to gather communication timeliness data. Following is a discussion of the results according to the research questions.
Students' Perceptions of Teaching Presence
On average, teaching presence in the seven courses was found to be neutral or slightly positive. All courses fell within a mean range of 3.02 and 3.75, a mean difference of 0.73. In general, it can be said that neutral ratings of teaching presence are better than low. However, given the findings of the study, there are a variety of ways that teaching presence can be improved
Bush, Castelli, Lowry, and Cole (2010) studied online university courses to provide recommendations on how to improve teaching presence. Bush et al. recommended emphasizing the role of online instructors by providing professional development opportunities focused on improving teaching presence and performance. Additionally, Bush et al. suggested improving teaching presence to promote student interest, participation, effort, and satisfaction.
Instructor Communication Timeliness for Direct Feedback
Communication timeliness and the hours of the day that communication is done can be useful information for discussing course activity trends. In this study, the number of hours that instructors' took to respond to students' work ranged from 11.41 hours to 83.22 hours. On average, students' submitted assignments between the hours of 4 P.M. and 7 P.M.; and the time of day for instructors' responses ranged from 1 P.M. to 7 P.M.
According to these findings, it is apparent that instructors are either checking the online course environment before the students are submitting their work or almost one day after. From these findings, the instructors should be very close to meeting or exceeding the administrative expectations regarding instructor communication timeliness.
The institution where this study was conducted had an administrative policy in place regarding online instructor communication timeliness. Instructors were expected to provide a 24-hour response time to students by logging in every weekday. Instructors were also expected to login at least once on the weekend to manage any course needs (S. Beets, personal communication, December 22, 2009). This policy is consistent with recent research on what students perceive to be important in online courses.
Sheridan and Kelly (2010) studied student perceptions in online courses and found that students placed a high value on instructor communication timeliness. Over 80% of the student participants in their study indicated instructor communication timeliness should be within 24 hours.
Four of the seven courses studied met the administrative communication timeliness expectation with the following average instructor's response hours: Course A, 20.29; Course B, 20.21; Course D, 23.89; and Course E, 11.41. Three of the courses did not meet the communication timeliness expectation with the following averages: Course C, 49.02 hours; Course F, 25.40 hours; and Course G, 83.22 hours.
The two classes with the greatest amount of time elapsing between communications also had the lowest mean teaching presence scores. When considering these results, students may have had higher perceptions of teaching presence had the instructors been more timely in their responses.
Relationship Between Teaching Presence and Communication Timeliness
Determining if a correlation coefficient existed between the teaching presence and communication timeliness mean could not be ascertained due to the anonymous data collection method utilized. Thus, utilizing a data collection method with participant identifiers is necessary when determining if a relationship exists and is suggested for future research.
When calculated, the data correlation test yielded a p value of 0.022. This result showed there was a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between teaching presence and communication timeliness. This also allows the conclusion to be made that there is a significant linear relationship between teaching presence and communication timeliness.
Implications
Practical implications of this study include suggestions for improving instructor communication timeliness and teaching presence. Theoretical implications also focus on improving the perceived teaching presence of instructors.
Practical implications of communication timeliness include detailing the anticipated instructor time of day communication patterns (Bailey, 2008; Kuskis, 2006). Identifying when responses are most likely to be given in the course syllabus may be effective for instructors of this setting and elsewhere.
Results of this study found students often posted their assignments in the afternoon and evening hours. Student perceptions of online courses in Sheridan and Kelly's (2010) study found students placed a high value on instructor communication timeliness. Over 80% of their student participants indicated instructor communication timeliness should be within 24 hours. However, no literature has been found directly discussing the communication patterns for assignment submission of online distance education students. Determining communication patterns of students may allow instructors to adjust their own communication patterns to better meet student needs.
Implications of theory focus on the element of teaching presence in the community of inquiry. The community of inquiry model stipulates educational experiences occur through interaction with three key elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000). Each element of the community of inquiry model is categorized by CMC events indicating the type of presence demonstrated. In particular, teaching presence processes should be aimed at achieving relevant and meaningful learning outcomes (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). The students' perceptions of teaching presence can ultimately impact this element of the community of inquiry model, as it is viewed as the instructor's responsibility (Garrison et al., 2000).
Future research on teaching presence and communication timeliness should address online instructor teaching presence, online instructor communication timeliness, and student communication patterns. Online instructor teaching presence should be addressed to describe immediate feedback and purposeful interaction. Instructor communication timeliness and time of day for responses could be researched through a mixed methods approach allowing instructors to explain habits and patterns when responding to students. Student communication patterns should be addressed to determine the times at which students are most likely to submit work to the online distance education environment.
