Introduction
Even if digital coursework had increased well before March 2020, whispers and sideway glances in brick-and-mortar colleges of education still resisted virtual learning as “a last resort” (Thompson et al., 2020, p. 204). Thus, the “crisis distance learning” (Epps et al., 2021) generated by the two-year + global COVID-19 pandemic was, to some extent, a glass-half-full validation for the often-suspect instructional medium. Moreover, even if, as Epps et al. (2021) argued, “The pandemic teaching of 2020 was not a wholly authentic example of ‘distance learning’- i.e., learning designed with this modality in mind” (p 178), online teacher education, for an extended moment, was afforded a certain, albeit reluctant, legitimacy. There was no alternative. Post-COVID, suspicions still linger about online teacher education and the sense of connectedness that teacher candidates experience in the medium with each other and their instructors.
Looking back, the knee-jerk reaction for many faculty was to frame teacher presence literally—and we reached for the blunt instrument of synchronous video conferencing to perform “teacher” across screens. Instructors were seen and heard and Zoom fatigue quickly ensued (Lindstrom et al., 2021). While our shared impulse to be present was understandable, research has long argued for a more deliberate and measured use of synchronous video conferencing and asynchronous instructional video as better practice (Richardson & Lowenthal, 2017; Roulston et al., 2018; Shearer et al., 2020). However, little quasi-experimental research has confirmed the value of either. Thus, university-based teacher preparation faculty continue to rely on their gut instinct to gauge just how present is present enough to grow the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework that guides so much of our online course design (Garrison et al., 1999, 2010).
Advertisement
Extending a previous collaboration surrounding CoI and synchronous video conference technologies in twin sections of an online graduate teacher education course (Globalization, Communities, and Schools), the goal of this self-study was to understand, as the pandemic subsided, what the insertion of brief three-minute instruction generated videos achieved or did not achieve in terms of our candidates’ perceptions of the dynamics of online presence and their satisfaction as learners. Our question was singular:
1.
Do instructor-created videos increase social presence, teaching presence, instructor social presence, or learner satisfaction?
The results have implications for instructors, course designers, and administrators who are looking to increase online learning offerings or improve the quality of existing online courses. The instructor's presence is important but can be built with various methods, including video, and a combination of methods is suggested to reach diverse learners.
Literature Review
Developing learners’ connectedness is a priority for online teaching and learning. For two decades, research for distance education has leveraged and, at times, challenged Garrison et al.’s (1999) CoI framework to understand and address the dynamics of online spaces and the overlapping dimensions of presence that sustain and grow those connections (see, e.g., Arbaugh et al., 2008; Castellanos-Reyes, 2020; Garrison et al., 2010; Pollard et al., 2014).
Advertisement
While breaking down the dynamics of presence in online coursework can be challenging, scholarship has honed in on the tripartite of social, cognitive, and teaching presence as CoI building blocks (Garrison et al., 1999). More recently, Richardson and Lowenthal (2017) argued for more attention to “instructor social presence”—the behaviors online instructors engage in project immediacy (Hodges & Cowan, 2012; Sheridan & Kelly, 2010) and intimacy (Tackie, 2022) beyond the teaching tasks that would otherwise signal their teaching presence. Thus, for the purposes of our study, we specifically named and focused on the interrelated features of teaching presence, social presence, and instructor social presence in relation to the instructor-generated videos that were not included in the respective course section twin. The subsequent section delves into the existing literature, highlighting the potential connection between online presence and instructor-generated videos.
Teaching Presence
In traditional face-to-face (F2F) environments, teaching presence is the charisma, flair, or rigor individual instructors bring to lecture halls or seminar rooms. We remember, for example, our various undergraduate face-to-face professors of pre-internet times whose still-legendary lectures were standing-room only and frequently ended in a combination of tears and ovations. In contrast, distance education frames teaching presence as “learners' perception of how well the design, facilitation, and direction of the course can produce meaningful and worthwhile educational outcomes” (Zhang et al., 2022, p. 2).
In online formats, teaching presence is often considered a design issue supported by carefully aligned course content, assessments, and activities—the glue or “binding element in creating a community of inquiry” (Garrison et al., 1999, p. 96). Here, teaching presence is not simply unidirectional. Instead, it is a shared responsibility between students and the instructor. According to Micsky and Foels (2019), teaching presence and the leadership and direction provided by an instructor (Gunawardena, 1991; Hiltz & Turoff, 1993) reinforce a sense of community for the learner. One common strategy for building a teaching presence is asynchronous video communication (Borup et al., 2013).
Social Presence
Learners’ ability to project their personalities to develop relationships within the course is what we think of as social presence (Garrison et al., 2010). Feelings of togetherness can be enhanced through various technologies (Frisby et al., 2013; Kaufmann & Vallade, 2022). Research suggests, for example, that social presence in the virtual environment serves as a major support for learning and that social presence might be established and sustained through the efficient use of digital tools (Borup et al., 2013). Micsky and Foels (2019) argued that the community students want to be a part of can be achieved through a strong sense of social presence or relationships between students and the instructor (see also, Shearer et al., 2020).
Lowenthal and Dunlap (2018) investigated various strategies that increase social presence to conclude that students are more interested in connecting with the instructor rather than one another. Micsky and Foels (2019) confirmed that student-to-student interactions were indeed valued. However, they argued students’ prioritization for responses and guidance from the instructor—reinforcing the need for instructors to be intentional in their selection of delivery methods that promote and enhance social presence within their courses (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018). Although teaching presence and social presence are distinguished within the CoI framework, they are not mutually exclusive constructs (Borup et al., 2013). Lowenthal and Dunlap (2018) noted that strategies used to develop social presence can double as a type of teaching presence.
Notably, one of the more commonly used tools researchers have investigated is the use of instructor videos in online courses. For example, Arlien (2016) examined the effect of instructor-generated digital media in community college faculty to find a strong positive correlation between verbal/non-verbal immediacy behaviors and digital content use, impacting successful course completion. Immediacy (Hodges & Cowan, 2012; Sheridan & Kelly, 2010) and intimacy (Tackie, 2022) are both historical dimensions of the broader construct of social presence (Short et al., 1976).
Instructor Social Presence
As previously mentioned, contemporary scholarship has differentiated the category of “instructor social presence” as a distinct layer of being in online coursework (Richardson & Lowenthal, 2017). Instructor social presence is grounded in instructors’ abilities to project a sense of intimacy or the feeling that they are only an email message away (Tackie, 2022). F2F instructors might project connectedness with a handshake or greeting as students enter the classroom, with an encouraging nod of the head while a student speaks, or with small talk before and after class. In online spaces, instructors turn to digital tools and technologies to let students know they are present.
Some online instructors leverage asynchronous video communication, with Borup et al. (2013) positing that purposeful video technology may help minimize the challenges associated with social presence without visual components. Collins et al. (2019) found that asynchronous video may positively influence instructors' social presence and improve engagement and student retention. However, as Austill (2019) argued, faculty who intentionally use asynchronous video to increase their instructor's social presence often need technical support and advice on how to get started. Likewise, different instructors have different degrees of comfort recording themselves on camera.
Materials and Methods
This mixed method self-study compared two nearly identical online asynchronous courses (n = 22 and n = 28, respectively). Both courses began with identical “Start Course Here” pages in which the instructor welcomed the students in the form of a letter (i.e., “Dear Teachers,...”) and articulated the course rationale, objectives, format, and activities. Each of the five subsequent modules also began with a “Start Module Here” letter (“Dear Teachers,...”) introducing the shared book-length reading for the module, its alignment to the course objectives, and a reiteration of the module activities and calendar. However, in one of the two course sections, the instructor also included brief videos reinforcing the “Start Course/Module” letters in an abbreviated version. These were recorded on the instructor’s university-issued laptop from his kitchen office on Zoom with closed-captioning with the instructor looking and speaking directly into the camera and were inserted directly above the “Dear Teachers” salutation of their corresponding Start Here page. The shortest of the six videos lasted two minutes and 12 s and the longest four minutes and 57 s. All other design and facilitation elements were identical including the instructor’s biweekly course announcements posted in Canvas and reiterated in class email communications.
The Course and its Participants
Globalization, Communities, and Schools was first launched in Spring 2011 at a large urban University in the Southeastern United States. From its start, the course, generated by a professor in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), was 100% online and inserted across the multiple M.A.T./M.Ed. degrees as an elective in response to a college-wide internationalization effort. In Summer 2017, the instructor redesigned the course for national review with Quality Matters (QM), a peer review quality assurance system containing eight general standards grounded in research and driven by online course design best practices (see, https://www.qualitymatters.org/)—meeting all standards in the first round of review.
In Spring 2022, the combined enrollment in the two sections totaled 50 M.A.T./M.Ed. students and one doctoral student, most of whom enrolled in an M.Ed. in Urban Education. The 16-week semester-long course was taught by said instructor, who had been heavily involved with QM at a national and institutional level for some time.
Again, the two sections of the course were completely asynchronous and identical except for, as previously mentioned, the insertion of one of the two sections of a series of six instructor-generated videos to introduce the course and each of the five modules. These short two to four minute videos were posted to a single section of the course to understand their potential impact on enhancing the Community of Inquiry (COI). Finally, this study happened as the university and, more broadly, the nation began slowly lifting the various health-safety requirements that had been in place for the pandemic. While the course's online format remained unaffected, both student participants and the instructor had, to varying degrees, experienced the repercussions stemming from two years of uncertainty in our professional and personal lives.
Instrumentation and Data Analysis
This mixed-method self-study took place in the Spring 2022 semester. In late April, an electronic survey was sent out to the students of both sections via email with several reminders. The intent of the survey was to measure students’ perceptions of learning satisfaction, teaching presence, social presence, and instructor social presence and contained 27 five-point Likert scale items ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The learning satisfaction section of the survey included five items created by the research team. The teaching and social presence scales were derived from the Community of Inquiry survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008). The teaching presence portion contained thirteen items regarding student perceptions about the design and organization of the course, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. The social presence scale contained nine items measuring affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion. Arbaugh et al. (2008) reported Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.94 and 0.91 for teaching presence and social presence, respectively, indicating a high internal consistency. Pollard et al. (2014) developed the instructor social presence scale (Cronbach alpha = .971) that contained nine items measuring student perceptions of instructor social behavior.
Participant demographic information was also collected, and follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with students who volunteered from both sections to gather additional data to contextualize survey results. Quantitative survey results were compared across sections and demographics using T-tests for independent samples (Mertens, 2020). The interviews were transcribed and coded deductively to allow themes with CoI codes. Quantitative and qualitative course evaluation data were also collected to triangulate findings of whether the inclusion of instructor-created overview and reflection videos increased perceptions of social presence, teaching presence, instructor social presence, or learner satisfaction in this course. We note that the course instructor did not participate in the electronic distribution of the surveys or the interviews.
Results
A total of 24 surveys were completed: 16 from the section with videos and eight from the section without videos. Of those survey completers, three agreed to be interviewed: two from the course with videos and one from the course without videos. Table 1 summarizes participant demographics. The demographics were mostly full-time employed female African American students of various ages taking ten or fewer online classes.
Table 1
Participant demographics
Demographic | Categories | N | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 25 | 92.6 |
Male | 2 | 7.4 | |
Ethnicity | Caucasian | 6 | 22.2 |
African-American | 14 | 51.9 | |
Latino or Hispanic | 2 | 7.4 | |
Two or More | 4 | 14.8 | |
Prefer not to say | 1 | 3.7 | |
Age Range | 18–25 | 6 | 22.2 |
25–30 | 6 | 22.2 | |
30–35 | 6 | 22.2 | |
35–45 | 3 | 11.1 | |
45 or older | 6 | 22.2 | |
Number of Online courses taken | 1–5 | 12 | 44.4 |
6–10 | 11 | 40.7 | |
11–15 | 2 | 7.4 | |
More than 15 | 2 | 7.4 | |
Enrollment Status | Part time | 13 | 48.2 |
Full time | 14 | 51.9 | |
Employment status | Full time | 21 | 77.8 |
Part time | 2 | 7.4 | |
Not employed | 4 | 14.8 |
Difference in Satisfaction, Teaching Presence, Social Presence, and Instructor Social Presence
Table 2 shows the mean differences for each of the four instruments used in the survey.
Table 2
T-test results for each instrument
Instrument | Mean with Video (n = 16) | Mean Without Videos (n = 8) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction | 4.66 | 4.97 | .082 |
Teaching Presence | 4.63 | 4.61 | .414 |
Social Presence | 4.91 | 4.83 | .234 |
Instructor Social Presence | 4.83 | 4.70 | .324 |
There were no statistically significant differences between the sections with and without videos of the overall means of the four instruments collected. Generally, all the instruments were rated highly in both courses. Table 3 shows the individual prompts from each instrument with statistically significant differences.
Table 3
Items with significant differences
Items with Significant Differences | Instrument | Mean with Video (n = 16) | Mean Without Videos (n = 8) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
I am satisfied with the technology used in this course | Satisfaction | 4.63 | 5.00 | .042 |
I would recommend this course to other students | Satisfaction | 4.63 | 5.00 | .042 |
I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants | Social Presence | 5.00 | 4.69 | .006 |
I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants | Social Presence | 4.94 | 4.5 | .003 |
The instructor clearly communicated important course goals | Teaching Presence | 5 | 4.88 | .003 |
The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn | Teaching Presence | 4.88 | 4.38 | < .001 |
The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course | Teaching Presence | 5 | 4.88 | .003 |
My Instructor is humble with the students | Instructor Social Presence | 4.94 | 4.75 | .046 |
My instructor creates an attitude of sharing | Instructor Social Presence | 4.94 | 4.75 | .014 |
The two learning satisfaction items were significantly higher in the section without videos. This result might be because students did not have time to watch the videos or because of the difference in sample sizes. All the other items from the other three instruments were significantly higher in the section with videos. Interestingly, the item with the highest significance was regarding the instructor's ability to identify areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics to help students learn.
Semi-Structured Interview Findings
Three participants provided information via semi-structured interviews via Zoom. Interview transcriptions were created with the Zoom transcription service. A graduate student then listened to the interviews while reading the transcripts to make corrections. The transcripts were uploaded into NVivo and phrases from the transcripts were highlighted and coded deductively with the variables of social presence, teaching presence, and instructor social presence. Example codes and associated quotes are noted in Table 4. For example, if a participant mentioned the value of having choices, that was coded as social presence because it allows for various types of self expression.
Table 4
Example codes
Codes | Participant Quotes |
|---|---|
Social Presence | “Always kind of a choice… Some kind of digital medium or it could be some kind of narrative—personal narrative.” “Allowed for our own individuality.” “We had a choice also yeah in the assignment bundle.” |
Teaching Presence | “The course is basically a book study of 5 different books.” “He also usually would post once himself if within the forums.” “Yeah, it was just to facilitate more conversation it wasn’t just a hey this is my point of view.” “He gives specific office hours and we also by appointment if we needed to do that we could get in touch with him” “One thing that I think is key to helping people do that is really setting up like a time frame you know some kind of schedule.’ “He always would write at the end of our assignments kind of a personal letter back to us you know saying what he noticed in our assignment bundle.” |
Instructor Social Presence | “He had both videos.” “He also sent us a lot of email.” “Kind of his thoughts on a book or you know his personal experience.” “His video, his input into the forums” “I like the videos because it kind of gave you know it kind of gave a real person, a real person’s perspective.” “It just gave that realness…I think that facial expressions speak a thousand words too.” “I do like the option of having for example asynchronous Zoom meeting at some point.” |
The coding process revealed similar themes that emerged as described by the participants. As the codes of social presence, teaching presence, and instructor social presence began to surface, participants shared strategies that were directly related to each of the codes but not necessarily connected with the use of instructional videos. For example, the strategies used for social presence included the instructor allowing for individuality and promoting learner choice. Participant A stated that students always had a choice of using “some kind of digital medium or it could be some kind of narrative, personal narrative” when posting to discussion forums. Participant B echoed a similar response in sharing about individuality— “Everyone was kind of expressing aspects of, like, their background or their current position or different factors in their lives as teachers that influenced, you know, how they would apply what they learned from that reading”.
Strategies associated with teaching presence included course facilitation, book study-course design, personalized prompt feedback, and set schedules and modules. All participants referenced the course design as a book study of multiple types of literature selected by the instructor. Participant B engaged in the course asynchronously and explained, “It was an asynchronous forum, but since it was condensed to 48 h, there was kind of a lot of back and forth between the classmates”. While Participant C (who engaged with some of the instructor-videos) also mentioned “the assignment bundle” that concluded every three-week module. Participant C noted that when students completed their discussion board posting as part of the assignment bundle, this element served as a “representation of the post that you put in, and you have an analytic synthesis that requires you to dive into the material and connect with it to share your thoughts and your feelings.”
When reviewing the instructor social presence code, some of the strategies associated with the code included personal experiences, videos, and listed characteristics of the instructor demonstrating instructor social presence. Participant A mentioned how the instructor shared his own personal experience of growing up “in a military home,” which added a different perspective to the discussion. When talking about video presence, there were clear discrepancies. Participant B, who participated in the section without videos, complained, “It’s more like I was interacting with technology rather than a human because…I didn’t have a picture of who I was interacting with”. The video component was a part of Participant A’s experience and the student stated, “I like the videos because it kind of gave, you know, it kind of gave a real person, a real person’s perspective and kind of…just gave that realness”, “I think facial expression speaks a thousand words too.” Participant C stated, “the way that he presented things that he communicated via emails prior to that, the way he communicated in the actual discussion space, it was just very warming and inviting.” This evidence showed instructor social presence extended beyond the video components to include other forms of communication that proved to be impactful and beneficial for students.
Course Evaluation Data
Institutionally mandated course evaluations included quantitative and qualitative data and may have included different respondents than those who agreed to participate in the study survey. The course evaluation is a Likert scale from one to five: one representing strongly disagree and five representing strongly agree. Table 5 summarizes the quantitative data from the university-administered course evaluation surveys from both sections.
Table 5
Course evaluation quantitative data
Instrument | Mean with Video (n = 9) | Mean Without Videos (n = 11) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall, I learned a lot in this course | 5 | 4.73 | .008* |
Overall, this instructor was effective | 5 | 4.82 | .061 |
My instructor was prepared and organized | 5 | 5 | 0 |
The teaching strategies used in this course helped me understand course content | 4.89 | 4.73 | .266 |
Course assignments helped me understand course content | 4.89 | 4.73 | .157 |
This course challenged me to think about the subject matter | 5 | 4.82 | .061 |
My instructor provided timely feedback about my performance on course assignments | 5 | 5 | 0 |
My instructor provided useful feedback about my performance on course assignments | 5 | 4.73 | .008* |
My instructor used varied evaluation methods that were clear and consistent | 5 | 4.82 | .061 |
I experienced a positive learning environment in this class | 5 | 4.82 | ,061 |
The course evaluations were high in both sections, with some slight elevation in the section with videos. Two items showed statistically significant differences: (1) overall, I learned a lot in this course and (2) My instructor provided useful feedback about my performance on course assignments.
Qualitative course evaluation comments from each section are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Course evaluation qualitative data
Prompt | With Videos | Without videos |
|---|---|---|
Course Strengths | • Variety of instructional methods, especially the expectation to read the text and complete forum conversations at the end of each text. Also, I appreciated the supplemental resources provided that added depth to my understanding of the content • The class is structured in a way that I clear, concise and organized. Emails are actively sent every few days clarifying anything regarding assignments. This has given me a peace of mind in the class • The professor is knowledgeable, compassionate, and empathetic. He is the best professor I have ever had. He is an amazing instructor and highly recommended • The professor provided sufficient resources for exploration of topics and thorough feedback. He also sent frequent reminders which were helpful in feeling connected during a distance learning course • Loved the readings that were included this semester!- I also really appreciated the amount of time in between assignments. It gave just the right amount of time to read the material, digest it, and converse with peers about it through the Canvas discussions • He is an amazing instructor, VERY attentive, organized, and personable. I appreciate how many reminders we were given during the course as well as how prompting he responds to any questions or concerns • The materials were relevant to the course and effective for my learning. The instruction provided detailed feedback promptly. The expectations were clear and reiterated throughout the course • Examples of scholarly and professional activism, and highlighting the experiences of youth outside of the black and white binary | • Constructive integration • I appreciate the opportunity for student choice through the synthesis assignments as well as the scheduled discussion boards. By setting time parameters and choice in discussion boards, this professor's assignments translated into meaningful peer conversations • The discussions and collaborative class settings, the topics of discussion, as well as the book study methodology • What I found particularly supportive in this course were not only the main texts we studied but also all the additional materials (videos, articles, etc.). In fact, some of the additional material has sparked ideas that I hope to build upon in the future. For example, I would love to have a writing workshop with students and parents similar to Somos Escritoras, especially after experiencing the social-emotional needs students are facing in large part due to the pandemic • I found the book club format of the course as opposed to having to read a textbook to be more interesting and engaging than other courses. I enjoyed being able to learn from reading about the experiences of other educators and conversing with my colleagues to gain new perspectives about the diverse student population we all work with. I love how he was very informative and communicative. He kept us up to date with deadlines and even shared his thoughts and perspectives on the books we were reading. It was nice to glean from his perspective and experiences as well • A reading forum type of class is awesome versus having multiple assignments to force in before a deadline. A lot of projects and assignments does not meet my learning style so I love this class for being different • The class had many activities that made me reflect on my practices as a schoolteacher who advocates for the students • I liked the format of the assignments and the forums • I have not read texts similar to these throughout my program, they were extremely informative and gave me great insight. He gave amazing insight/feedback for each module. I really enjoyed this course • He frequently communicated with us, reminding us of assignments and deadlines. I really, really enjoyed most of the readings for the course, and they truly expanded my perspectives on the topics. I appreciated the various options for what we could do for the analytic syntheses, and enjoyed this component of the course as well • He created a safe learning environment which allowed budding leaders ina education a space to share, reflect, and improve. He graded assignments in a timely manner, and provided quality feedback |
Course Weaknesses | • N/A • I do not have any significant issues to highlight about the course • NONE! • N/A • None • None whatsoever the class is amazing in every way • None | • N/A • I did not enjoy Nguyen's text because it seemed very one-sided and biased, as well as less applicable • The course was very boring and did not allow for much interaction with peers. Also, assignments should be done in different formats such as a presentation, PowerPoint, etc • I do not have any for this class • Not really a weakness, but it is always more difficult to do assignments on a small time limit • I found no weaknesses with the course or instruction • none noted • NONE |
Other comments | • I loved this so much! I will want to take another course from this instructor again! • All classes should be structured this way to provide clarity for students. There wasn’t much need to email the professor because everything was so clearly delivered • GIVE HIM A RAISE! HE DESERVES IT! • Thank you for providing such a great online learning platform. I was able to learn so much from the readings, but equally as much through conversing with my colleagues about different concepts that I had not thought about prior to this course • I just wanted to send appreciation for the opportunity to use creative outlets for completing assignments. One of the options given for analysis of the readings was creating Found Poems. I used this choice for all of the assignments for this course because it also allowed me a creative outlet for digesting the material • Overall, I enjoyed the course and learned a lot • Thank you for your support, engagement, organization of the course, and reading selections. I appreciate your thorough and reflective feedback on discussion boards and modules. I am thankful for your consistent interaction and communication with students throughout this course | • Continue this positive enrichment • Not that I needed any more work, but I do think that meeting with the class via Zoom after every book for a short lecture and further discussion of the book topics and topics specifically related to globalization, communities and schools would have been helpful. Perhaps some other assignments to further connect the issues brought up in the books…something to bring all of the readings full circle. And though I enjoyed most of the readings, they were difficult to get through and not necessarily written in an interesting or intriguing way in my opinion; this made it harder for me to connect to the topics, especially compared to the Teacher Leadership class I was also taking this semester which was also structured as a book study • Being an elementary school ESL teacher, I would have liked to have explored a text that also takes a look at younger students more in-depth • I had never experienced this format before. I loved it • I appreciate all his work for this class |
In both sections, students highlighted many strengths of the course, including the ability to choose different ways of completing assignments. They lauded the instructor’s course design, timely and personalized feedback. Notably, however, students from the section with videos had no notable weaknesses whereas one student from the section without videos suggested a synchronous Zoom meeting at the conclusion of each book and another student mentioned a lack of opportunity for synchronous interaction. Previous iterations of the course featured synchronous meetings. These meetings, however, were eventually removed due to the convenience and availability of students, resulting in a asynchronous course. Additionally, the comments from the course with the video had more feedback about the instructor’s personal characteristics such as empathy.
Discussion and Conclusions
Since the success of online learning largely depends on strong teaching that promotes engagement and community between learners and instructors (Dell, 2012; Shearer et al., 2020), the purpose of this mixed method self-study was to evaluate whether brief instructor-created asynchronous videos increased social presence, teaching presence, instructor social presence, or learner satisfaction in an online asynchronous course. Data showed no statistically significant differences in overall learner satisfaction, social presence, teaching presence, or instructor social presence between the course sections with and without instructor-created asynchronous videos That said, here were statistically significant differences in several individual items within each survey instrument.
The survey prompt revealing the largest statistical significance was “The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn”, with participants in the course with instructor-created videos rating this level significantly higher than their peers in the course without video. This evidence suggests that, within the context of our self-study, some learners experienced the same instructor in different ways than other learners, as if the instructor-created videos generated a different representation of the same instructor. While this difference could be due to the instructor's detailed, personalized, timely feedback on each submission, there is evidence that online course instructors make a difference in students' perceptions of teaching presence. For example, Fiock et al. (2021) examined teaching presence across eleven sections of an online course that all had the same course design but different instructors and found significant differences in teaching presence scores across instructors. These results are similar to findings reported by Han (2013), who found that video casting in synchronous online courses positively impacted learners' feelings of copresence with an instructor.
Our results suggest that in spring 2022, instructor-generated asynchronous videos benefitted some students but not all. These results affirm prior research indicating the importance of a more personalized experience in distance education courses (Shearer et al., 2020) and also reflects the importance of the guiding principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework (see, http://udlguidelines.cast.org). The UDL framework contains three guiding principles to create effective learning experiences for all learners: multiple means of representation, engagement, and action and expression. Providing multiple means of representation allows learners to engage with content in ways that are responsive to their individual needs and preferences (Shearer et al., 2020). Although, there are also criticisms of the UDL frameworks lack of clear definition and over reliance on generalizations similar to learning styles (Boysen, 2021). Regardless of theory or frameworks, with the advancement of educational technologies, it is increasingly possible to create and deliver content in multiple formats, enabling asynchronous courses that are more responsive to the individual needs and preferences of diverse learners which may increase accessibility and learner engagement with content.
Follow-up conversations to review these findings with the course instructor revealed additional implications for online teaching. The instructor reflected that while the inclusion of brief asynchronous videos may contribute to a more responsive course to individual student preferences, it was the technical requirements to ensure the digital accessibility of those videos, like the importance of accurate closed captioning, that he perceived as a potential problem. The instructor explained that Quality Matters and accessibility laws (USA, 1973) required closed captioning to be accurate, and he had not yet discovered a way to ensure accuracy beyond transcribing the audio manually, a challenging and time-consuming process. This instructor's concern regarding ensuring digital accessibility of asynchronous videos aligns with the findings of Guilbaud et al. (2021), who reported an uneven level of accessibility readiness among faculty and noted that professional development had a significant influence on knowledge and practice of accessible course design and development.
Pandit and Agrawal (2022) suggested several factors are needed at institutions to create effective online learning: leadership buy-in, the inclusion of collaborative peer learning, faculty digital competence, effective technological tools, faculty training, a quality assurance process, and student readiness. The concerns of this instructor directly relate to the faculty’s digital competence and training categories, suggesting an extended moment to evaluate the state of university-based instructors’ digital competence and training needs (Çebi & Reisoğlu, 2022; Edstrand & Sjöberg, 2023; Graziano et al., 2023) to be time well-spent. If the inclusion of a three-minute video could make a difference for the needs of even one student, then the inclusion of a three-minute video and the steps needed to ensure the digital accessibility of that video should matter to all of us.
This study contributes to the literature as it quasi-experimentally examined the use of videos in asynchronous online courses and exposed that a single strategy does not create a significant difference. A combination of strategies including course design, setting tone, personalized feedback and delivering feedback in a timely manner all contribute to the learners feeling connected to the instructor. Although, some preferred the ability to see the instructor's face and hear their voice.
Limitations and Future Research
This self-study has a few limitations that provide opportunities for future research. First, this study was conducted at a single institution with small sample sizes. Therefore, additional research with a larger population is necessary for results to be generalizable to diverse populations. Moreover, this course instructor was a seasoned online instructor and the course’s instructional design was Quality Matters certified, creating a ceiling effect in the data collection as students were largely satisfied and connected to the content and the instructor regardless of the use of videos. Finally, this instructor’s hesitation to integrate asynchronous video due to digital accessibility concerns suggests a need for additional research into the real and perceived challenges to ensuring an online course is responsive to the needs and preferences of diverse learners.
Declarations
Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
