A study of an online cyber identity course designed on the basis of the community of inquiry model

Abstract

The current study examines whether an online cyber identity course, which was based on the community of inquiry model, significantly affected the self-efficacy perception of school counselor candidates (SCC) in terms of technology integration. Forty-four SCC, selected using the criterion sampling method, participated in a mixed-method design study by taking a one-week online cyber identity course. The online version of the Computer Technology Integration Survey (CTIS) was used as a pre and post-test measure to collect quantitative data. Two subscales are used in the survey to measure the self-efficacy of participants. Qualitative data was collected through the use of a structured interview form which included open-ended questions regarding the social, cognitive, and teaching presence of the community of inquiry model. T-tests were conducted to detect any significant differences between the pre and post-test scores of the CTIS subscales. The results of these tests revealed that the online cyber identity course created significant differences in both SCC’s self-efficacy perception of the computer technology capabilities and strategies, and the external influences of computer technology uses. Moreover, qualitative analysis results showed that students reflected more on cognitive and teaching presence than on social presence.

Keywords

• Cyber identity
• School counselors
• Information technologies
• Self-efficacy
• The community of inquiry model

References

1. Akyol, Z., and Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
2. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765
3. Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 12, (5), 50-56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.924
4. Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communication technology. International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 77-104. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/59804
5. Atman Uslu, N., & Usluel, Y. K. (2019). Predicting technology integration based on a conceptual framework for ICT use in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(5), 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2019.1668293
6. Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Cengage Learning.
7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155- 159.
8. Çakıroğlu, N., and Kılıç, S. (2020). Understanding community in synchronous online learning: Do perceptions match behaviors? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1500888

9. Davis, J.L., (2016). Identity theory in a digital age. In J. E. Stets & R. T. Serpe (Eds), New Directions in Identity Theory and Research, (pp.137-164). Oxford University Press.
10. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-hill.
11. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93-104. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/471
12. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer
13. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
14. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education,15(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
15. Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Effective online teaching: A tale of two instructors. International Review of Research on Distance Learning, 10(3). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/712/1270
16. Kaya, G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerinde BİT entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlere yönelik içerik analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (31), 48-67. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/231642
17. Keengwe, J., OnChwari, G., & OnChwari, J. (2009). Technology and student learning: Towards a learner-centered teaching model. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 17(1), 11-22. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/26258/.
18. Kozan, K., and Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.007
19. Kuşcu, E., & Ömerustaoğlu, A. (2021). Covid 19 sürecinde acil uzaktan öğretime devam eden öğrenci gruplarının araştırma topluluğuna evrilmesi. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 54(3), 747-775. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.947964
20. LeCompte, M. D. ve Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60
21. Noe, A. (2005). Action in perception. MIT Press.
22. Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/103367/.
23. Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Lins, R. D., and Găsević, D. (2019). A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry. Internet Higher Education. 42, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.05.001
24. Rommie, L., and Duckworth, L.P. (2020). Duckworth on education: Community of inquiry. https://www.emsworld.com/article/1224658/duckwortheducation-community-inquiry
25. Sancar, R. (2022). Siber kimlik: Kimliğin dönüşümü ve eğitim öğretim süreçlerine yansımaları. In A.A. Kurt, S. Bardakçı & H. Karal (Eds), Eğitim ve Değişim, (pp. 55-72). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
26. Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35–44.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e89c/10b62d361e4dd4da79329b5f00c2591effba.pdf
27. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.4.b
28. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-5
29. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017
30. Ünal, E. & Teker, N. (2018). Teknoloji entegrasyonuna yönelik öz-yeterlik algısı ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması [The Adaption of Technology Integration Self-Efficacy Scale into Turkish]. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University], 6(6), 973-978. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.400497
31. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414
32. Zuo, M., Hu, Y., Luo, H., Ouyang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2022). K-12 students’ online learning motivation in China: An integrated model based on community of inquiry and technology acceptance theory. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 4599-4620.