The following is a description of various processes we went through as we code for different people.

The first instance of coding using the rubric.

To begin, we were given a copy of the cognitive presence model—the phases (triggering event, exploration, integration, resolution) the indicators with suggestions of the evidence of the process.

Then we were given our first discussion stream transcript to analyse and were asked to code for cognitive presence at the post level. We were asked to record the 'highest' phase of cognitive presence we saw in each message.

We coded the transcript individually, analysed our reliability, and then discussed our individual understanding of the rubric to ensure we were seeing things the same way. We repeated this process three times, using the first discussion stream, until we were confident that we were grounded by a mutual understanding of the meaning of the rubric. With the third coding and discussion, our percentage reliability increased to an acceptable level.

(The intention in this project was to discover if there was a higher level of learning achieved while using different instructional strategies.)

The second instance of coding using the rubric.

The second project we worked on had a few differences compared with the first one.

We were asked to code at the paragraph level instead of the post level and we were also asked to code the three presences—cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence. We were asked to code the student's messages using the cognitive presence and the social presence and the instructor's messages using the teaching presence. But before we could begin, we had to determine how many paragraphs each posting contained.

(The intention in coding cognitive and social presence in the student's messages was to look for patterns of interaction and coding for the teaching presence was to find out if the teaching presence influenced the pattern of interaction seen in the students' messages).

Again, we coded the first discussion stream two or three consecutive times in order to establish a mutual understanding of the rubric's definition, as they applied to this project. Also, during this process, we determined that it was necessary to add to the rubric in order to allow it the better apply to these transcripts. These modifications included the addition of a teaching presence code for "instructor personal narrative" in which the instructor may share personal information about their experience or life outside of the classroom context.

The third instance of coding using the rubric.

The last project we've work on had a different twist to it.

We were asked to code online discussions, as well as transcripts of face-to-face discussions. From these, we were asked to code each message using the three presences (cognitive, social and teaching). For example, we had to code the instructor message using the three presence and same with the learners messages. The reason for this being that the class participants were, themselves, instructors.

For cognitive presence we coded both, the online and the F2F, at the post level and selected the 'higher' phase of cognitive presence while for the social and teaching presence we coded also at the post level but included all the categories and indicators we each saw in each messages.

(The intention was to compare similarities and differences between the F2F and online sessions.)

Once again, we repeated the coding of the first discussion stream, and determined a mutual "rubric vocabulary" as well as any necessary, additional, rubric categories.