EXPLORING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN THE COVID-19 SEMESTER THROUGH THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

Year 2022, Volume: 23 Issue: 1, 1 - 18, 01.01.2022

Mutlu Sen Akbulut Duygu Umutlu Diler Oner Serkan Arıkan

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1050334

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This mixed-method study was conducted to validate the factor structure of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework in the COVID-19 semester (Spring 2020). Spring 2020 is typically characterized as an emergency remote teaching (ERT) period, distinguished from purposefully-designed instruction for online teaching. To examine the CoI framework’s usefulness for understanding university students’ online learning experiences in this period, the authors collected data using the CoI survey and interviews. The structural equation modeling analyses indicated that teaching presence predicted social and cognitive presences more significantly in the ERT period than regular times. The qualitative findings showed that the courses where teaching presence was high were evaluated as effective by participants even when cognitive and social presences in these courses were relatively low. These findings suggested that course instructors should prioritize planning well-designed online course activities to ensure their teaching presence in times of emergency.

Keywords

The community of inquiry framework, mixed-methods design, mixed-methods design, online learning, COVID-19 semester, structural equation modeling

References

• Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (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, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3.66
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2012). Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course outcomes relationships in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 16-28. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.002
• Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry 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
• Baker, V. L. (2020, March 25). How colleges can better help faculty during the pandemic. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/25/recommendations-howcolleges-can- better-support-their-faculty-during-covid-19
• Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R., Kelly, K., Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A., & Hill, P. (2020). Understanding Pandemic Pedagogy: Differences Between Emergency Remote, Remote, and Online Teaching. https://k12sotn.ca/blog/announcing-special-report-understanding- pandemic-pedagogy-differences-between-emergency-remote-remote-and-online-teaching/ Accessed on December 23, 2020.
• Bates, T. (2020, April 7). What should we be doing about online learning when social distancing ends? Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/04/07/ what-should-we-be-doing-about-online-learningwhen-social-distancing-ends/
• Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001
• Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989x.1.2.130
• Caskurlu, S., Maeda, Y., Richardson, J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers & Education, 157, 103966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103966
• Choo, J., Bakir, N., Scagnoli, N. I., Ju, B., & Tong, X. (2020). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Understand Students’ Learning Experience in Online Undergraduate Business Courses. TechTrends, 64(1), 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00444-9
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
• Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
• 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
• Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (11.0 update) (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Govindarajan, V., & Srivastava, A. (2020, March 31). What the shift to virtual learning could mean for the future of higher ed. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/whatthe-shift-to-virtual- learning-could-mean-for-the-future-of-higher-ed
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 3. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/ the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning. Accessed on June 11, 2020.
• Horzum, M. B. (2015). Online learning students’ perceptions of the community of inquiry-based on learning outcomes and demographic variables. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski casopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 17(2), 535-567. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i2.607
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. https://doi. org/10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424
• Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). US Faculty and Administrators’ Experiences and Approaches in the Early Weeks of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Online Learning, 24(2), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2285
• Johnson, S. (2014). Applying the seven principles of good practice: Technology as a lever - in an online research course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 41-50. https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/ issues/pdf/13.2.2.pdf
• Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
• Lincoln, Y. S. & E. G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 113-128). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781605669847.ch010
• 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/10.4324/9780429294235-8
• Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2013). Mplus user’s guide (Version 6.1) [Computer software and manual]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.