Investigation of Instructional, Cognitive and Social Presence of Teacher Candidates in Online Synchronous Courses

Öz

This study aims to reveal the cognitive, social, and instructional presence of preservice teachers in synchronous online courses and to determine the relationship among these components. The research was conducted in online synchronous educational sciences courses at a state university in Ankara during the fall semester of the 2024-2025 academic year. The study group consisted of 496 students. A mixed method was used in the study. Quantitative data were obtained using the Community of Inquiry Survey, while qualitative data were obtained using a semi-structured interview form developed by the researcher. According to the findings obtained from the quantitative stage, the students' cognitive, instructional and social presence were found to be at “high” levels. It was found that there was a positive and significant relationship above the moderate level between cognitive and social presence, a moderate level between instructional and social presence, and a moderate level between cognitive and instructional presence. According to the findings obtained from the qualitative stage, it was determined that teacher candidates generally had positive views regarding their cognitive, social, and instructional presence. It is believed that the obtained results will guide online education designs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher education
• Instructional presence
• Cognitive presence
• Social presence
• Online synchronous learning

Öğretmen Adaylarının Çevrim İçi Eşzamanlı Derslerde Öğretimsel, Bilişsel ve Sosyal Buradalıklarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada öğretmen adaylarının eş zamanlı çevrim içi derslerde bilişsel, sosyal ve öğretimsel buradalıklarının ortaya koyulması ve bu bileşenler arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma, 2024-2025 akademik yılları güz döneminde Ankara ilinde bir devlet üniversitesinde çevrim içi eş zamanlı okutulan eğitim bilimleri derslerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma grubu toplam 496 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada karma yöntem kullanılmıştır. Nicel veriler Sorgulama Topluluğu Algısı Ölçeği, nitel veriler ise araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu ile elde edilmiştir. Nicel basamaktan elde edilen bulgulara göre öğrencilerin bilişsel, öğretimsel ve sosyal buradalıkları “yüksek” düzeyde bulunmuştur. Bilişsel ve sosyal buradalık arasında orta düzeyin üzerinde, öğretimsel ve sosyal buradalık arasında orta düzeyde, bilişsel ve öğretimsel buradalık arasında ise orta düzeyin üzerinde pozitif ve anlamlı ilişkiler olduğu bulunmuştur. Nitel basamaktan elde edilen bulgulara göre öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel, sosyal ve öğretimsel buradalıklarına ilişkin genel olarak olumlu görüşlere sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçların çevrim içi eğitim tasarımlarına yol göstereceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen eğitimi
• Öğretimsel buradalık
• Bilişsel buradalık
• Sosyal buradalık
• Çevrim içi eşzamanlı öğrenme

Kaynakça

1. Akyol, Z. & Garrison, A. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3-4.1680
2. Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cogninitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
3. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
4. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: testing a measure of the community of ınquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
5. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2010.1.2
6. Berry, S. (2019). Teaching to connect: community-building strategies for the virtual classroom. Online Learning, 23(1), 164-183. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1425
7. Bozkurt, A. (2013). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmeye yönelik etkileşimli e-kitap değerlendirme kriterlerinin belirlenmesi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). http://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
8. Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2018). The community of inquiry theoretical framework: Implications for distance education and beyond. M. G., Moore & W. C. Diehl (Ed.), Handbook of distance education içinde (s. 67-78). Routledge.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4. b.). Sage.
10. Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2017). Desingning and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
11. Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2019). Community of inquiry in web conferencing: Relationships between cognitive presence and academic achievements. Open Praxis, 11(3), 243-260. https://doi:10.5944/openpraxis.11.3.968
12. Deniz, Ü. & Yakut-Özek, B. (2023). Online learning experiences of graduate students in Türkiye: could this be the footsteps of a reform? Participatory Educational Research, 10(1), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.12.10.1
13. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of Covid-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
14. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
16. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
17. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3. b.). Routledge.
18. Gǎsević, D., Adesope, O., Joksimovic, S., & Kovanovic, V. (2015). Externally-facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006
19. Hayes, S. & Tucker, H. (2021). Using synchronous hybrid pedagogy to nurture a community of inquiry: Insights from a tourism Master's programme. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 29, 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100339
20. Horzum, M. B. (2015). Online learning students’ perceptions community of inquiry based on learning outcomes and demographic variables. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(2), 535-567. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i2.607
21. Jiang, M. & Koo, K. (2020). Emotional presence in building an online learning community among non-traditional graduate students. Online Learning, 24(4), 93-111. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2307
22. Karasar, N. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel.
23. Kılıç, S. & Gökoğlu, S. (2021). Öğrenci ve öğretmen merkezli eşzamanlı çevrim içi öğrenme ortamlarında sorgulama topluluğu oluşumlarının incelenmesi: İki durum çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 2165-2187. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.973266
24. Kılıç, S., Çakıroğlu, Ü., & Horzum, M. B. (2016). Investigating teaching, social and cognitive presence of students in synchronous online environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(2), 350-364. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.35549
25. Kırışoğlu, S. & Yıldırım, M. (2024). Pandemi sürecinde uzaktan eğitimde senkron, asenkron ve hibrit yapılmış derslerde veri madenciliği ile öğrenci performans analizi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 12(2024), 89-111. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.1067122
26. Kilis, S. & Yıldırım, Z. (2019). Posting patterns of students’ social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in online learning. Online Learning, 23(2), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1460
27. Kim, W. (2015). Learning flow, motivation, and community of inquiry in an online graduate degree program. (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3736267).
28. Kocaman-Karoğlu, A., Bal, K., & Çimşir, E. (2020). Toplum 5.0 sürecinde Türkiye’de eğitimde dijital dönüşüm. Journal of University Research, 3(3), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.815428
29. Kozan, K. & Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.007
30. Krzyszkowska, K. & Mavrommati, M. (2020). Applying the community of inquiry e learning model to improve the learning design of an online course for in service teachers in Norway. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(6), 462-475. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.6.001
31. Maddrell, J. A., Morrison, G. R., & Watson, G. S. (2017). Presence and learning in a community of inquiry. Distance Education, 38(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322062
32. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
33. Murphy, M. P. (2020). Covid-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749
34. OECD. (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en
35. Olpak, Y. Z. & Kılıç-Çakmak, E. (2018). Examining the reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the community of inquiry survey. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.990
36. Öztürk, E. (2015). Facebook as a new community of ınquiry environment: an investigation in terms of academic achievement and motivation. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.20
37. Öztürk, M. (2021). Open and distance education perceptions of pre-service teachers: Asynchronous and synchronous online learning. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.38151/akef.2021.18
38. Parrish, C. W., Guffey, S. K., Williams, D. S., Estis, J. M., & Lewis, D. (2021). Fostering cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence with integrated online-team-based learning. TechTrends, 65, 473-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00598-5
39. Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
40. Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 127-154. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.915
41. Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2017). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 54(3), 1234–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
42. Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, …, & Trinko, L.A. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002
43. Stewart, M. K. (2017). Communities of inquiry: A heuristic for designing and assessing interactive learning in technology-mediated FYC. Computers and Composition, 45(1), 67-84. https://10.1016/j.compcom.2017.06.004
44. Szeto, E. (2015). Community of inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers and Education, 81, 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.015
45. Telli, S. G. & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrim içi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi. Journal of University Research, 3(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.711110
46. Tik, C. C. (2016). Community of Inquiry for graduate certificate in higher education. Psychology, 6(1), 24–31. https://doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2016.01.001
47. Tu, C. H. & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
48. Waddington, A. & Porter, S. (2021). Developing social presence in online learning among nurses: Exploration of the community of inquiry models domain of social using a qualitative descriptive design. Nurse Education in Practice, 52(2021), 103000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103000
49. Wang, A. & Newlin, M. H. (2001). Online lectures: Benefits for the virtual classroom. T.H.E. Journal, 29(1), 17-28.
50. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
51. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6. b.). Sage.