1. bookVolume 20 (2017): Issue 1 (June 2017)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Examining Learners’ Interaction in an Open Online Course Through the Community of Inquiry Framework

Published Online: 23 Jan 2018
Page range: 61 - 79
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English

Open online courses are becoming more prevalent at local level and for and professional development objectives. Proper instructional design combined with use of online tools can promote learner interaction in online environments. Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, this study aimed at examining learners’ interaction and their perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in an open online course offered for professional development in three Swedish universities. The course was free and open to all, attracting participants from all over the world. In order to understand the online interactions of the course, three presences of CoI were matched to three types of interaction (Moore, 1989). Data were collected through a slightly revised version of the CoI instrument and open-ended questions were added. Survey results showed that participants had high perceptions of the three presences in the course. Results also yielded significant relationships between teaching presence and cognitive presence, as well as social presence and cognitive presence. The findings suggest that deploying a set of online tools combined with appropriate pedagogical approaches in designing open online courses could foster learner interaction especially learner-content interaction and cognitive presence.

Keywords

1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2), 82-103. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x10.1007/s12528-011-9043-xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive 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. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

3. Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231-246. doi:10.1080/10494820902809147Search in Google Scholar

4. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149Search in Google Scholar

5. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2), 1-17. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/ATHAB_CA/Anderson.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

6. 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 Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.00310.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

7. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. http://doi.org/10.3102/003465430933384410.3102/0034654309333844Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

8. Clarà, M., Kelly, N., Mauri, T., & Danaher, P. A. (2015). Can massive communities of teachers facilitate collaborative reflection? Fractal design as a possible answer. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(1), 86-98. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1095280Search in Google Scholar

9. Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical Models for E-Learning: A Theory-Based Design Framework. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25-44. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.4593&rep=rep1&type=pdfSearch in Google Scholar

10. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., de Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005). Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.xSearch in Google Scholar

11. Eradze, M., & Laanpere, M. (2013). Analysing Learning Interactions in Digital Learning Ecosystems based on Learning Activity Streams. Paper presented at the European Conference of Educational Research, Istanbul, September 2013.Search in Google Scholar

12. Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26.Search in Google Scholar

13. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.Search in Google Scholar

14. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-610.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

15. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.00110.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_210.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

17. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.00210.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18. Hoven, D. (2006). Communicating and interacting: An exploration of the changing roles of media in CALL/CMC. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 233-256. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24156246Search in Google Scholar

19. Kilgore, W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2015). The Human Element MOOC: An Experiment in Social Presence. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Establishing an equitable and fair admissions system for an online (pp. 389-407). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Search in Google Scholar

20. Koseoglu, S., & Koutropoulos, A. (2016). Teaching Presence in MOOCs: Perspectives and Learning esign Strategies. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016, Lancaster.Search in Google Scholar

21. Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, J. L. (2013). Community of inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/12.1.1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

22. Liu, S., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165-182. Retrieved from http://online2.sdccd.edu/bblearntrain/2013_2014/Liu_Gomez_Yen_2009.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

23. Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, May 3-4, 2010, Aalborg, 266-274. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Mackness.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

24. Mckerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student Perceptions of Teaching Presence, Social Presence, and Cognitive Presence in a Virtual World. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324-336. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no3/mckerlich_0911.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

25. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0892364890952665910.1080/08923648909526659Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

26. Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012Search in Google Scholar

27. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 11(4.2), 1-18.Search in Google Scholar

28. Saadatmand, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2014). Participants’ Perceptions of Learning and Networking in Connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 16-30.Search in Google Scholar

29. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, selfregulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(1), 1721-1731.Search in Google Scholar

30. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based Online Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.2.1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

31. Siemens, G. (2010). Teaching in Social and Technological Networks.Search in Google Scholar

32. Siemens, G. (2012, July 25). MOOCs are really a platform. [Blog post] ELEARNSPACE. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocsare- really-a-platform/Search in Google Scholar

33. Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Roles of course facilitators, learners , and technology in the flow of information of a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Online and Distance Learning, 16(3).Search in Google Scholar

34. Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The Importance of Interaction in Web-Based Education: A Program-level Case Study of Online MBA Courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 1-19. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/4.1.1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

35. Swan, K. (2006). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(4), 306-331. http://doi.org/10.1080/015879101022020810.1080/0158791010220208Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

36. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch00410.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo