What have we learned?

As we coded for these different projects we realized many things...

We realized that unless the discussion is purposely directed to try to achieve higher level of learning, it might most likely not happen by it self.

• We found that most often learners do what instructors have asked them to do. —No more.
• We found almost none 'resolution' phase in most of the discussions (except in a debate activity) because the required task did not ask them to do so.

We realized that coding at paragraph level instead of coding at posting level gives you much more information (some posts may be one page long- it is difficult to assign only one value to the post). We also saw many times that the same message may exhibit many phases within (i.e. triggering event, exploration and integration).

• We found value in recording all phases we could see.
• We found problematic to record only what was seen as the 'higher' phase of the model for the cognitive presence. Also it was impossible to do the same with the social presence, as there is no 'higher' phase of social presence.

We also realized that coding the three presences (cognitive, social and teaching) gives you more information than coding only one presence (i.e. cognitive). By coding the three presences you can see patterns of interaction and discover many more things.

We realized that that this model was very challenging to code F2F transcript.

• We found the model was not the best to code F2F transcripts because the pattern of interaction in a F2F format is completely different than in an online format. In the online world messages usually have a beginning, a middle and an end. In F2F, the communication pattern is quite different. People interrupted each other, sentences are not finished, or finished by someone else, etc., and we found the model did not allow (make provision) to record any of these instances, leaving lots of information out. It was a forced fit!