Assessing the Student’s Perspectives on E-learning Based on Community of Inquiry Framework: A Cross-sectional Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Education, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Curriculum Studies, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: The expansion of e-learning has highlighted the need to ensure the quality of teaching and learning. This study aimed to assess students’ presence in e-learning based on the Community of Inquiry (COI) framework at the University of Tabriz, Iran.
Methods: In this cross-sectional research, a total of 217 undergraduate students from the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Tabriz, Iran, were chosen through simple random sampling between February and May of the 2020–2021 academic year. Data collection was conducted using the 34-item COI questionnaire, which includes three components: teaching presence (13 items), social presence (9 items), and cognitive presence (12 items), each rated on a five-point Likert scale. Experts verified the questionnaire’s validity, and it demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). The collected data were analyzed using one-sample t-tests and Pearson correlation through SPSS version 26.
Results: Students’ scores for teaching (3.83±0.55), social (3.47±0.72), and cognitive presence (3.66±0.53) were all significantly above the cutoff point (P<0.001). Significant positive correlations were observed between daily study hours and teaching presence (r=0.17, P=0.017), social presence (r=0.185, P=0.009), and cognitive presence (r=0.285, P<0.001).
Conclusion: According to the COI framework, teaching, social, and cognitive presence are essential components of e-learning that support constructivism and connectivism approaches and reduce transactional distance. This study found that students perceived a high level of presence in their e-learning experiences, indicating an acceptable quality of virtual courses at the university. To improve e-learning outcomes, it may be more beneficial to strengthen students’ social and cognitive presence rather than concentrating exclusively on teaching presence.

Keywords

References

  1. Allen IE, Seaman J. Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. US: Babson Survey Research Group; 2014.
  2. Sun A, Chen X. Online education and its effective practice: A research review. J Inf Technol Educ. 2016;15:1–17. doi:10.28945/3502.
  3. Robb CA, Sutton J. The importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning. Technol Manag Appl Eng. 2014; 31(2).
  4. Frydenberg J. Persistence in university continuing education online classes. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn. 2007;8(3):1–5. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v8i3.375.
  5. Conrad RM, Donaldson JA. Continuing to engage the online learner: More activities and resources for creative instructio New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
  6. Abbasi Kasani H, Shams GR. A research synthesis of critical success factors of e-learning: A model development. Technol Educ J. 2018;13(1):25–39. doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3061.1777. [In Persian]
  7. Ahmady G, Nakhostin-Ruhi N. Investigation of the differentiation of blended learning with electronical learning and traditional learning (face to face) in teaching mathematsJ Sch Psychol. 2014;3(2):7-26. [In Persian]
  8. Srivastava P. Advantages & disadvantages of e-education & e-learning. J Retail Mark Distribut Manag. 2019;2(3):22-7.
  9. Christensen S, Spackman SJ. Dropout Rates, Student Momentum, and Course Walls: A New Tool for Distance Education Designers. JEO. 2017; 14(2). doi:10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.7.
  10. Simpson The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students. Open Learning: Open Learn. 2004;19(1):79–95. doi:10.1080/0268051042000177863.
  11. Wimbish JB. Listening to the voices of students: the role of student-teacher interaction to course completion in on-line course [Dissertation]. MI, United States: Michigan State University; 2001. doi:10.25335/qxx1-5t75.
  12. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M. Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. Am J Dist Educ. 2005;19(3):133–48. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.
  13. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Am J Dist Educ. 2001;15(1):7-23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071.
  14. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Koole M, Kappelman J. Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet High 2006;9(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001.
  15. Stenbom S. A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. Internet High Educ. 2018; 39:22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.001.
  16. Biocca F. Can we resolve the book, the physical reality, and the dream state problems? From the two-pole to a three-pole model of shifts in presence. In: EU Future and Emerging Technologies, Presence Initiative Meeting. Venice, Italy: Citeseer; 2003 May 5:13–69.
  17. Delello JA, McWhorter RR, Lawrence H. Fostering a community of inquiry in online discussions. Acad Exch Q. 2019;23(1):51–7. doi:10.12348/IJAS20220608.
  18. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Fung TS. Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(1-2):31–6. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
  19. Shea P, Bidjerano T. Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Comput Educ. 2009;52(3):543–53. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007.
  20. Garrison DR. Self-directed learning and distance education. In: Handbook of Distance Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. P. 161–8.
  21. Shea P, Li CS, Pickett A. A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet High Educ. 2006;9(3):175-90. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005.
  22. Meinel C, Staubitz T, Köhler D. Innovative Formats for Online Teaching. Potsdam: German University of Digital Science; 2024.
  23. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High Educ. 1999;2(2-3):87-105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
  24. Garrison DR, Arbaugh JB. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet High Educ. 2007;10(3):157-72. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.
  25. Thompson P, Vogler JS, Xiu Y. Strategic tooling: Technology for constructing a community of inquiry. J Educ Online. 2017;14(2): n2. doi:10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.10.
  26. Garrison DR. Cognitive presences for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction, and metacognition. In: Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction. 2003;4(1):47–58.
  27. Zhu M, Kadirova D. Self-directed learners’ perceptions and experiences of learning computer science through MIT open courseware. Open Learn. 2020;1–6. doi:10.1080/02680513.2020.1781606.
  28. Brookfield S. Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective Ohio, U.S: McGraw-Hill Education; 1986.
  29. Brookfield SD. Powerful techniques for teaching adults. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
  30. Lear JL, Isernhagen JC, LaCost BA, King JW. Instructor presence for web-based classes. Delta Pi Epsilon J. 2009;51(2). doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1851-8.CH006.
  31. Bulu ST. Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Comput Educ. 2012;58(1):154-61. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.024.
  32. Filippou F. The first woman’s dancer improvisation in the area of Roumlouki (Alexandria) through the dance “Tis Marias.” 2015;6(b):1-24.
  33. Sung E, Mayer RE. Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28(5):1738–47. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.014.
  34. Hosler KA, Arend BD. The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educ Media Int. 2012;49(3):217–29. doi:10.1080/09523987.2012.738014.
  35. Alman SW, Frey BA, Tomer C. Social and cognitive presence as factors in learning and student retention: An investigation of the cohort model in an iSchool setting. J Educ Libr Inf Sci. 2012 Oct 1:290-302.
  36. Ladyshewsky R. Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. Int J Scholar Teach 2013;7(1):1-23. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113.
  37. Tan C. The impact of COVID-19 on student motivation, community of inquiry and learning performance. Asia Pac Educ Dev Stud. 2021;10(2):308–321. doi:10.1108/AEDS-05-2020-0084.
  38. Mackey KR, Freyberg DL. The effect of social presence on affective and cognitive learning in an international engineering course taught via distance learning. J Eng Educ. 2010;99(1):23-34. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830. 2010.tb01039.x.
  39. Yandra FP, Alsolami B, Sopacua IO, Prajogo W. The role of community of inquiry and self-efficacy on accounting students’ satisfaction in online learning environment. J Siasat Bisnis. 2021;25(1):1-6. doi: 10.20885/jsb.vol25.iss1.art1.
  40.  Bangert A. The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. J Comput High Educ. 2008;20(1):34-61. doi:10.1007/BF03033431.
  41. Lee R, Hoe Looi K, Faulkner M, Neale L. The moderating influence of environment factors in an extended community of inquiry model of e-learning. Asia Pac J Educ. 2021;41(1):1-5. doi:10.1080/02188791.2020.1758032.
  42. Al-Asfour A. Examining student satisfaction of online statistics courses. J Coll Teach . 2012 Jan 3;9(1):33-8. doi:10.19030/tlc. v9i1.6764.
  43. Vernadakis N, Derri V, Tsitskari E, Antoniou P. The effect of Xbox Kinect intervention on balance ability for previously injured young competitive male athletes: a preliminary study. Phys Ther Sport. 2014;15(3):148-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2013.08.004
  44. Choo J, Bakir N, Scagnoli NI, Ju B, Tong X. Using the Community of Inquiry framework to understand students’ learning experience in online undergraduate business courses. TechTrends. 2020;64(1):172-81. doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00444-9.
  45. Joo YJ, Lim KY, Kim EK. Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Comput Educ. 2011;57(2):1654-64. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008.
  46. Li K, Peterson M, Wang Q. Using community of inquiry to Scaffold language learning in out-of-school gaming: A case study. Int. J. Game-Based 2021;11(1):31-52. doi:10.4018/IJGBL.2021010103.
  47. Ke F. Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Comput Educ. 2010;55(2), 808-820. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.
  48. Khazai S, arefi M. Investigating the Level of Teaching Presence, Cognitive Presence and Social Presence at Web - Based Courses: The Case Study of Shahid Beheshti University. New Educ Approaches. 2020;15(2):161-178. doi: 10.22108/nea.2021.126621.1579. [In Persian]
  49. Narenji Sani, F., Amoee, N., Hejazi, S. The relationship between the community of inquiry and the students’ learning outcomes in e-learning environments. Inf Commun Technol Educ Sci. 2021;11(43):65-85. doi: 20.1001.1.222853.1400.11.3.4.6. [In Persian]
  50. Taqizade A, Hatami J. Investigating the Relationship among Educational, Social and Cognitive Presences with Students’ Academic Performance in E-learning Courses. A Path Analysis Study. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2019;11(5):169-77. doi: 10.29252/edcbmj.11.05.19. [In Persian]
  51. Zahedi, M., khodabandelou, R., Mehran, G. Community of Inquiry and Perceived Learning: A Study of a Blended Learning Environment. Iran J Learn Me 2019;1(4):51-7. doi: 10.22034/iepa.2019.86026.
  52. Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Diaz SR, Garrison DR, Ice P, Richardson JC, Swan KP. Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet High Educ. 2008;11(3-4):133-6. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003.
  53. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563-75. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570. 1975.tb01393.x.
  54. Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. Pennsylvania: Davis Fa; 1981.
  55. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
  56. Tu CH, McIsaac M. The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. Am J Dist Educ. 2002;16(3):131-50. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2.
  57. Abedin B, Daneshgar F, D’Ambra J. Underlying factors of sense of community in asynchronous computer supported collaborative learning environments. J Online Learn Teach. 2010;6(3):585-96.
  58. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(1-2):5-9. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.
  59. Whiteside AL, Garrett Dikkers A, Lewis S. The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Rev Online; 2014 Jul 12. [Cited 2023 Jan 5] Available from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/5/the-power-of-social-presence-for-learning.
  60. Yamada M, Goda Y. Application of social presence principles to CSCL design for quality interactions. InEducational stages and interactive learning: From kindergarten to workplace training. IGI Global; 2012. P. 31-48. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0137-6.ch003.
  61. Mykota D. The Effective Affect: A Scoping Review of Social Presence. Int J E-Learn Dist Educ. 2018;33(2):n2.
  62. Almusharraf A, Almusharraf N. Socio-interactive practices and personality within an EFL online learning environments. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2021;26(4):3947–3966. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10449-8. PubMed PMID: 33584118; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7870030.
  63. Karataş K, Arpacı İ. The role of self-directed learning, metacognition, and 21st century skills predicting the readiness for online learning. Contemp Educ Technol. 2021;13(3):ep300. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/10786.
  64. Sun W, Hong JC, Dong Y, Huang Y, Fu Q. Self-directed learning predicts online learning engagement in higher education mediated by perceived value of knowing learning goals. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2023;32(3):307–316. doi: 10.1007/s40299-022-00653-6. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8898031.
  65. Brandt WC. Measuring Student Success Skills: A Review of the Literature on Creativity. 21st Century Success Skills. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment; 2021.
  66. Gray JA, DiLoreto M. The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. Int J Educ Leadersh Pre 2016;11(1): n1.
  67. Shao M, Hong JC, Zhao L. Impact of the self-directed learning approach and attitude on online learning ineffectiveness: The mediating roles of internet cognitive fatigue and flow state. Front Public Health. 2022;10:927454. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.927454. PubMed PMID: 35991035; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9387909.
  68. Zhang W, Chen W, Wang R, Zhao H, Yuan E, Wang Z. The Presence Design of Online Teaching based on COI Model. In2020 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Computer In: 2020 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization (CSEI). 2020;225–29. doi:10.1109/CSEI50228.2020.9142498.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences
Volume 14, Issue 4 - Serial Number 55
December 2023
Pages 318-329

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 23 July 2023
  • Accept Date: 13 August 2023
  • Publish Date: 01 December 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics