�������� ����� ��

Extending the community of inquiry framework as an instructional approach:A study of educational experiences in blended synchronous learning

Elson Szeto

PII: S1096-7516(13)00068-7DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.11.002Reference: INTHIG 528

To appear in: The Internet and Higher Education

Accepted date: 26 November 2013

Please cite this article as: Szeto, E., Extending the community of inquiry framework asan instructional approach: A study of educational experiences in blended synchronouslearning, The Internet and Higher Education (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.11.002

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofbefore it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers thatapply to the journal pertain.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Extending the community of inquiry framework as an instructional approach: A

study of educational experiences in blended synchronous learning

Elson Szeto

The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong

Kong SAR, China.

Tel.: +852-29488434

Fax: +852-29487619

E-mail: eszeto@ied.edu.hk

Abstract Little research has been conducted to extend the teaching, social and cognitive presences in an instructional approach to contextualising online learning and teaching experiences. This qualitative case study reports this extension in a case of blended synchronous learning by exploring, from both online/face-to-face student and instructor perspectives, what contributes to shaping the experiences. The researchers interviewed the students and instructor, and conducted class observations with field notes in the processes of conducting an engineering course and the activities. The findings revealed that the learning experiences relied more on the teaching presence than on the social and cognitive presences for attaining the intended learning outcomes. The instructor's performance was transformed, while building social atmosphere and facilitation of discourses was challenging in the blended synchronous learning environment. Implications for further research are discussed.

1. Introduction

University learning and teaching that is ubiquitously supported by information and

communication technology (ICT) that offers innovative educational opportunities

beyond conventional instructional approaches is not new in higher education (Stacey

& Wiesenberg, 2007; The author, 2011). What remains challenging and of interest to

researchers is the learning and teaching experiences of the students and instructors

when implementing ICT-supported instructional approaches. Understanding these

experiences is, therefore, imperative to developing an effective instructional approach

for various forms of online, face-to-face or blended learning. The key is how to

explore these experiences to inform the instructional development and what

framework can be adopted to gain better understandings of the experiences in a

specific ICT-supported learning environment.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2

The study reported in this paper was to explore the online and face-to-face learning of

students and the instructional experiences of the instructors by extending Garrison,

Anderson and Archer’s (2000) community of inquiry (CoI) framework as an

instructional approach. The study set out to adopt the framework in real-world

instruction for blended synchronous learning (Chen, Ko, Kinshuk, & Lin, 2005;

Hastie, Hung, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2010). The instructional approach was to

synchronously blend online and face-to-face instruction in a virtual space mediated by

videoconferencing in a pseudo face-to-face learning situation. In fact, the exploration

was a response to Archer’s (2010) call for applying the CoI framework beyond

discussions in online courses.

This paper focuses on the experiences of blended synchronous learning and teaching

processes through an entire course. Specifically, it seeks to address two research

questions:

1. How did extending the CoI framework affect the development of the

instructional approach?

2. What student learning and instructor teaching experiences were

grounded in the presence of the teaching, social and cognitive elements?

In the sections that follow, the CoI framework is explored as the instructional

approach that guided the study, the course design is described, and the emerging

experiences as they unfolded throughout the process are discussed. The findings of the

experiences are presented for further discussion of their instructional significance and

their implications for further development of the CoI instructional approach.

2. The CoI framework

Focusing on educational experiences, the CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000) has

been widely adopted in studies of online learning and teaching modalities ranging

from text-based, asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) and

computer conferencing (Rourke, Anderson, & Garrison, 1999) to student online

learning satisfaction (Richardson & Swan, 2003). The quality of the educational

experience is conceptualised in the intersecting centre of the teaching, social and

cognitive presences of the CoI framework. The focus is on attainment of deeper levels

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3

of meaningful learning in relation to constructivist-oriented instruction (Akyol,

Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, 2009; Akyol & Garrison, 2011).

Thus, the three presences are important conceptual elements in a community of

inquiry, with each only representing a facet of the educational experience. Figure 1

presents the CoI framework.

[Figure 1 near here]

The teaching, social and cognitive presences were assumed to play equal roles in

shaping deeper levels of learning, that is, “cognitive processes and outcomes are at the

core of the transactions. Social presence and even teaching presence are, in most

respects, facilitators of the learning process” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p.55).

Social presence is regarded as “the ability of participants [students] in a community of

inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people through the

medium of communication being used” (p.94). Cognitive presence is defined as

“participants [students] in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry

[being] able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al.,

2000: p.89). It also “…provides a description of the progressive phases of practical

inquiry leading to resolution of a problem or dilemma” (Akyol & Garrison, 2011,

p.235).

Some studies (e.g., Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, Fung, 2010) indicate that the three

presences do not play equal roles. Teaching presence, for example, facilitates student

learning with course components and is interpreted as effective instructional

leadership during the learning processes (Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Garrison, 2007),

which are directed towards a constructivist orientation. Teaching presence plays a lead

role in facilitating social presence for communicative interactions and fostering

student learning towards the intended learning outcomes. However, the three

presences are all necessary components in the shaping of the educational experience

(Garrison, 2011).

Various studies (e.g., Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson,

2008; Garrison & Kanuka, 2011) have been conducted that use the teaching, social

and cognitive presences to measure the impacts of online learning on cognitive

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4

outcomes and student satisfaction. Sub-items of the three presences (Garrison &

Anderson, 2003) have also been developed as a coding scheme for the understanding

of online educational experiences by analysing discussion transcripts. Table 1 shows

the sub-items of the teaching, social and cognitive presences.

[Table 1 near here]

In contrast, little research has been conducted to operationalise the CoI framework as

an instructional approach for designing courses to be conducted in an online learning

context. This limitation is reflected in Archer’s (2010) call to extend the CoI

framework, with a focus on exploring the experiences in entire online courses.

Garrison (2011) preliminarily provides guidelines and recommendations for

translating the framework to practical instruction in blended learning. Thus, this paper

puts forth a further extension of the CoI framework as an instructional approach to

shaping educational experiences in alignment with the coding scheme of teaching,

social and cognitive presences. The alignment is based on the same set of presence

items developed by Garrison & Anderson (2003). Inspired by the above argument, a

case study of the extension with the CoI presences was initiated.

3. The case study

This paper, drawing from a larger study, aims to investigate instructional approaches

for various modes of online learning involving 150 undergraduate students over a 2-

year period. It reports the first phase of the project as a case study (Yin, 2003) that

extends the CoI framework as an instructional approach to exploring learning and

teaching experiences in a blended synchronous learning system in a Hong Kong

university. Although Hong Kong is a small place, the case study may not be

representative of the Chinese blended learning context. However, it is of particular

value for higher education institutions in other regions with similar instructional

practices. The study could provide research-based findings to inform course

instructional approaches for enriched educational experiences. Thus, the study is of

interest to online educators or course providers based in Hong Kong and other places.

In particular, the technological infrastructure consists of a regular computer and

network facilities with desktop video conferencing devices available in general

university teaching venues. The case study focuses much attention on what learning

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5

and teaching experiences emerged in the online learning mode, be it asynchronous,

synchronous or blended.

The study was set in a blended learning mode that synchronously blended online

learning and face-to-face teaching. The learning mode has become ubiquitous and

gained currency in higher education (Chen et al., 2005). In ideal blended synchronous

learning, Hastie et al.,’s (2010) holistic model contends that teachers and students “…

are participating both in physical classrooms and in cyber classrooms” (p.17). Thus,

the model involves not only the instructor who taught engineering theories and

performed hands-on demonstrations but also the two groups of students who

participated in the learning activities. Thus their participation shapes the learning and

teaching processes.

3.1. The course participants

A project team was formed with two faculty members from an engineering

department of a multi-campus university and the author from another institution in

Hong Kong. The team chose a computer-aided engineering drawing course for the

study. One of the two faculty members (the instructor) was responsible for

implementing the instructional approach that was extended from the CoI framework.

A total of 28 first-year engineering students (N = 28) agreed to participate in the study.

To obtain informant consent, the aims, research design and processes of this study

were explained to the students. They then enrolled in the engineering drawing course.

Half of the students were randomly assigned to the remote group, and the other half

were in the face-to-face group. While the online group (n = 14) synchronously

attended the same sessions at a remote site, the instructor taught the face-to-face

group (n = 14) in an engineering laboratory. This sample size was appropriate for this

case study that illuminated the students and instructor’s experiences in this context of

a blended synchronous learning instead of generalisation.

3.2. Extending the CoI framework as an instructional approach

Researchers (e.g., Rubin, Fernandes & Avgerinou, 2013; Shea, Hayes, Smith, Vickers,

Bidjerano, Pickett, Gozza-Cohen, Wilde & Jian, 2012; Swan, Matthews, Bogle, Boles,

& Day, 2012) have adopted different approaches to extending the CoI framework.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6

This author developed an instructional approach in alignment with the educational

experience through the coding scheme of teaching, social and cognitive presences

(Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison & Anderson, 2003), an approach that emphasises the

three presences as interrelated instructional components.

The CoI instructional approach is comprised of the teaching, social and cognitive

instructional components.. As such, these components guide the content to be

presented or demonstrated, direct the establishment of the peer communication

atmosphere in the learning environment, and inform on what discourse is facilitated to

construct the student learning (The author, 2013). They were first adapted to guide

what and how the course was designed through the experiences that were shaped.

Then, based on the coding scheme derived from the same set of presence items, the

students and instructor’s experiences were examined in the specific online learning

and teaching context. As a consequence, an alignment between the instruction and

experience can be developed. Table 2 lists the intended effects of the CoI instructional

approach in a blended synchronous learning environment.

[Table 2 near here]

Given that the salient role of teaching presence is to drive the other two presences, the

teaching presence component emphasises the instructor’s role as an instructional

expert who facilitates the social and cognitive presences throughout the entire course

in a community of inquiry (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). This role is necessary for

high-order learning (Garrison, 2011). However, the instructional effects of the three

components are expected to contribute to the attainment of the intended learning

outcomes in a balanced, interrelated learning and teaching process. Each presence is

responsible for a specific instructional aim involving various strategies (see Table 2.).

In the case study in the blended synchronous learning mode, the teaching presence

instructional component adapts a mix of direct and constructivist instructional

strategies to simultaneously teach the online and face-to-face students. The social

presence instructional component refers to constructing student learning interactions

by facilitating peer online/face-to-face communications and support while

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7

participating in the learning activities. The cognitive presence instructional

component calls for a strategy of formative assessment for learning in which the

students must complete individual course work, group projects and a quiz as well as

participate in open and group discussions.

The intersecting areas between two presence components reflect relevant instructional

effects in the practice of the instructional strategies. In the intersection of the teaching

and cognitive components, the selected content is the instructor’s presentation and

demonstration of engineering drawing knowledge and skills. The instructor’s

immediate feedback to the students’ questions and the sharing of the students’

drawings to promote discussion establish a social climate for interactive

communication in the intersection of teaching and social components. Supporting the

acquisition of knowledge and skills through learning discourse refers to the

facilitation of student participation in the learning activities in the intersection of

social and cognitive components. It is expected that the instructional effects as a

whole can bring about deeper levels of learning and teaching. However, this is the

most challenging and controversial objective (Akyol et al., 2009; Rourke & Kanuka,

2009) that researchers in online learning and teaching, educators and course

developers/designers encounter.

3.3. The learning activities

The course required the students to attend 6 hours of classes per day over 9 days for a

total of 54 hours, submit 7 engineering drawings, and take an in-class test in the fifth

session. As part of the formative assessment for the engineering drawing course, the

online activities comprised individual and group learning that included individual

practices, open/group discussions, group problem-solving exercises and group

engineering drawing projects. These activities emphasised individual and

collaborative participation in a blended synchronous learning environment. The

students also took a quiz during the course. Figure 2 shows the learning activities

incorporated in the blended synchronous learning course.

[Figure 2 near here]

3.4. Data collection and analysis

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8

The qualitative methods deployed to collect data throughout the entire engineering

course included teaching reflection, class observation, video recording, semi-

structured interviews and an end-of-course group sharing. Multiple sources of

qualitative data were generated including observational notes, 4-in-1 synchronised

videos of 10 half-day instructional sessions, 21 interview transcripts, and a transcript

of the focus group sharing. By analysing the data, further understandings of the

experiences and the potential pedagogic opportunities of the CoI framework are

provided. Because of the richness of the multiple data sources, the team examined the

experiences using the coding scheme for teaching, social and cognitive presences (see

Table 1) as an initial coding structure. In so doing, the analysis could coherently be

aligned with the CoI instructional approach, while being flexible enough to allow for

any emerging themes that supplemented the understandings.

A computer-aided qualitative data analysis package, NVivo 9, was used for the coding

of relevant data extracts as incidents of student experiences. As human actions are

based on social meanings, such as beliefs and intentions, what constitutes a real claim

for one person may not be real to another, depending on one’s interpretation (Bassey,

1990). Thus, to enhance the internal validity, the final coding of the researchers was

compared within NVivo. The inter-rater reliability Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (Cohen,

1960) was calculated to be 0.88, which indicates substantial agreement between

researchers. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until consensus was

reached. Table 3 presents the sample coding of the data.

[Table 3 near here]

3.5. Exploring the educational experiences in the blended synchronous learning mode

The CoI instructional approach was applied throughout the entire engineering drawing

course. The online/face-to-face student learning experiences and the instructor’s

teaching experiences were contextualised in the learning and teaching process. Video

was one of the multiple data sources that recorded the process in a 4-in-1 format.

Figure 3 illustrates a 4-in-1 video snapshot of implementing the CoI instructional

approach during the course.

[Figure 3 near here]

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9

By analysing the video as well as interview and field note data with the coding

scheme, Tables 4 to 6 highlight the key experiences in the instructional effects of

teaching, social and cognitive presence components, respectively. Each table exhibits

the experiences abstracted from a thorough process of constant comparison to

represent the meanings of the experience shaped by the instructional components. In

so doing, the key experiences further include the meanings from the perspectives of

the online students, face-to-face students and the instructor. Challenges and

opportunities are revealed in the instructional effects when implementing the

approach.

3.5.1. The key experience highlighted in the teaching presence.

Table 4 reflects that the two groups and the instructor experienced a sense of

engagement in the instructional experiment in which additional attention was given to

the online group, while the face-to-face group was perceived as a control group.

Clarity in conveying the content to the online students was praised in terms of being

“detailed”, having a “steady teaching pace” and “enhanced clarity” in contrast to the

face-to-face students’ comments as “overdone repetition”.

[Table 4 near here]

Although the instructor unintentionally offered different levels of attention to the two

groups, both the online and the face-to-face students complimented the instruction as

being “comprehensive” and “extraordinary”, respectively.

The instructional effect was the result of the instructor’s extra effort to facilitate

instructor-student and student-student interactions through the learning activities. For

example, the instructor moderated timely problem-solving exercises for the two

groups of students and linked their solutions across the two groups for further peer

feedback and discussion. The moderation emphasised student-student interactions

between the two groups during the problem-solving process. One online student

further added a general evaluation of the learning experience:

I felt free and liked the feeling very much. The interactive methods

[such as problem-solving exercises/discussions and inter-group

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10

projects] seemed interesting and better than traditional face-to-face

teaching. I was eager to learn in such an atmosphere.

(Focus Group Interview Extract/S1)

However, some online students felt that they were subjected to greater scrutiny, while

the face-to-face students felt neglected because the instructor spent more time

presenting the engineering knowledge and demonstrating its skills to the online group.

The instructor reflected that the “instructional experiment” with the two groups was

“enjoyable”. The mixed instructional strategies transformed his performance into the

multiple roles of presenter, facilitator, moderator and coordinator by incorporating

direct and constructivist instruction during the course. The shift was an instructional

challenge that required sound instructional leadership to walk through the blended

synchronous learning process with both the online and the face-to-face students. As a

consequence, the online learning and face-to-face teaching experiences could be

synchronously interwoven.

I taught in the traditional face-to-face classroom before this blended

synchronous learning mode. With the new instructional approach,

my instructional strategy was transformed and much more interactive

as I synchronously guided and facilitated the online and face-to-face

students.

(The instructor’s reflection extract)

The instructor experienced a blended synchronous instructional context different from

that in either the online or face-to-face teaching mode. He performed as an

instructional leader (Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Garrison, 2011) in designing and

implementing the blended learning to enrich the learning of the online and face-to-

face students. The instructor further managed the learning pace between the two

groups and facilitated their inter-group interactions, thus allowing the students to self-

moderate their learning as they worked to attain the intended outcomes.

3.5.2. The key experience highlighted in the social presence.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11

Table 5 displays the students and the instructor’s key experiences in the social

presence items. Facial and verbal communicative interactions were the main aspects

that emerged as the participants engaged in online discussions, inter-group problem-

solving exercises and group projects, which constituted part of the formative

assessment. Challenges for both the online and face-to-face students and the instructor

were related to achieving a sense of closeness with respect to face-to-face contact in

the blended synchronous environment. Their experiences reflect that a sense of

“indirectness” and “unnaturalness” are inevitable in this context. One face-to-face

student commented that:

We were not used to discussing or doing things with others through a

screen and a microphone with a voice level louder than normal talking.

(Focus Group Interview Extract/S3).

[Table 5 near here]

Both the students and the instructor tried to overcome the challenging experience by

enhancing their visual and auditory cues when interacting with each other. Because of

the absence of real face-to-face interactions, the two groups unconsciously enhanced

their contact with hand gestures and language tone. Meanwhile, the instructor

facilitated the online inter-group communication for the learning activities with

explicit and repeated instructional cues. With the combined efforts of the students and

the instructor, both the online and face-to-face groups appreciated the multi-screen

projection effect that helped them compensate by providing a sense of closeness in a

pseudo face-to-face atmosphere. Some online and face-to-face students mentioned

that “being synchronously connected with the online group could enrich our face-to-

face learning and vice versa”. Nonetheless, their open and inter-group discussions

were short and transactional.

3.5.3 The key experience highlighted in the cognitive presence.

Regarding the experiences in the cognitive presence, both the online and face-to-face

students stated that they learned the engineering knowledge and skills quickly and

easily through the assessment tasks. Although inter-group interactions in the learning

activities were not as smooth as those of the online students or as smooth as the

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12

instructor expected, the face-to-face students agreed that discussions with the online

students and the instructor did encourage knowledge sharing. Table 6 shows the key

experiences highlighted in the cognitive presence.

[Table 6 near here]

The above table displays the online and face-to-face students’ experiences in attaining

the intended learning outcomes. The formative assessment for student learning was

based on inter-group exercises, open/inter-group discussions, group projects and the

results of a quiz administered during the fifth session. All of these were deployed to

assist students in attaining the learning outcomes. However, the instructor observed

that sometimes the two groups did not spontaneously participate in the learning

activities. Accordingly, he devoted more time promoting discussion between them in

the problem-solving exercises in the blended synchronous learning environment.

Additional efforts were also required to foster inter-group interactions regarding

intended learning outcomes. Nevertheless, knowledge exchanges and sharing among

the face-to-face students were much more explicit than those among the online

students.

Interestingly, the students experienced attainment of the intended learning outcomes

with similar results on the quiz and on the formative assessment. For example, the

online and face-to-face groups’ average quiz results were 65% and 58.85%,

respectively. Although the former group’s average score was slightly higher than that

of the latter, the instructor did not find any remarkable difference between the two

groups on the overall assessment.

4 Discussion

The case study extends the CoI framework to an instructional approach in the context

of blended synchronous learning. The results answer the research questions as the CoI

instructional approach was designed in such a way that the examination of educational

experiences aligned with the teaching, social and cognitive presences. Although other

researchers have adopted different ways of extending the framework (e.g., Swan,

Matthews, Bogle, Boles, & Day, 2012), the merit of this alignment reflects the

coherence of shaping the experiences in online learning and teaching based on the

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13

same set of presence items. However, there are some issues that have emerged and

warrant further discussion.

First, the results confirm Garrison’s (2011) assertion that the leadership role of

teaching presence is important in facilitating and managing the effects of social and

cognitive presences. The roles performed by the three presences are not balanced in

the instructional process (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2010) as the teaching

presence effect is prominent and overshadows the social and cognitive presences.

Thus, the latter two presences are less accessible to the online and face-to-face

students, while the mixed strategy of direct and constructivist instruction leads the

online and face-to-face groups to attain similar results in the formative assessment. As

the experiences reflect, the instructor simultaneously performed multiple roles as a

content presenter/demonstrator, a facilitator and a moderator of the three intersecting

areas (see Tables 2 & 4) while leading the instruction. What does this multi-role

leadership realised in the teaching presence component mean for the CoI instructional

approach?

When explaining the CoI framework, Akyol and Garrison (2011) asserted that

teaching presence incorporates the important role of instructional leadership. However,

they have not further elaborated what this role means for the CoI framework in online

learning. Some may comment that the prominent role of teaching presence is

associated with the negative meaning of teacher-led instruction in traditional face-to-

face teaching. This paper argues against this negative association from the perspective

of teacher leadership, given that an online instructor in an online environment is

primarily a teacher teaching in a classroom setting. “Teachers who are leaders lead

within and beyond the classroom, identify with and contribute to a community of

teacher learners and leaders, and influence others towards improved educational

practice” (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001: p.17). In fact, the instructor performs similar

teacher leadership behaviours to enhance his/her practice in a blended synchronous

learning course. This paper interprets the instructional leadership, as suggested by the

researchers, as e-teacher leadership that facilitates student learning in a blended

atmosphere of social presence aimed at attaining the intended outcomes of the

learning process. This conception of leadership, however, requires further study.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14

This paper also anticipates that the instructional effects of the CoI approach can vary

in different modes of online learning and teaching. The teaching, social and cognitive

presence in instructional components provides proactive intervention through the

multiple instructional roles that establish an appropriate social climate for meaningful

discourse among the course participants. Whether the roles of the three presences are

balanced is subject to the specific context of online learning and teaching in which the

course participants are situated. In the case study, the teaching presence component

performed the prominent role of building a blended synchronous community of

inquiry for the online and the face-to-face students. The social or cognitive presence

components may dominate in the shaping of online educational experiences in other

online contexts. Thus, this study tentatively suggests that the online experience is

context specific and also challenging for students, instructors and course

developers/designers. The CoI instructional approach must be adjusted and fine-tuned

for different course participants in various online contexts. This also furthers study

along with the role of e-teacher leadership in implementing the presence of the three

instructional components.

5 Conclusion

This case study is significant in responding to Archer’s (2010) call for the extension

of the CoI framework to an entire course and also for the recent development of the

framework (Garrison, 2011; Garrison & Akyol, 2013). Although it does not aim for

generalisation, the results entail an alternative way of extending the CoI framework

compared with other researchers’ endeavours. The study explores Garrison et al.’s

(2000) CoI framework from conceptualisation in online learning to contextualisation

in blended synchronous learning. E-teacher leadership is not only an interpretation of

the unattended meanings of instructional leadership, as the researchers (Akyol and

Garrison, 2011) suggest, but also a potential area for further research. The key is how

e-teacher leadership connects with the social and cognitive presences in the CoI

instructional approach and contributes meaningful educational experience in different

online, face-to-face or blended learning contexts.

References

Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C. (2009). A

response to the review of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Distance Education,

23(2), 123-136.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15

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.

Archer, W. (2010). Beyond online discussion: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire

courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 69.

Bassey, M. (1990). Three paradigms of educational research, Research Intelligence (Autumn), 40-44.

Chen, N.-S., Ko, H.-C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the

Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181-194.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 20(1), pp. 37- 46.

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.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century. London: RoutedgeFalmer.

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence

issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.

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.

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.

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice (2 ed.).

New York: Routedge.

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for

communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84-89.

Hastie, M., Hung, I.-C., Chen, N.-S., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for

educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1),

9-24.

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as

leaders (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to

students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-

88.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-

based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of literature. Journal

of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.

Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the Community of

Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48-57.

Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M., Wilde. J., &

Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the

Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89-95.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16

Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A Study of Face-to-Face and Online Teaching Philosophies in

Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.

Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and

implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher Education,

15(2), 81-88.

The Author (2011).

The Author (2013).

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Design, Research and Methods (3 ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17

Figure 1: The Community of Inquiry framework.

Source: Garrison et al., (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The

Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3): 87-105.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

18

Figure 2: The learning activities in the processes of blended synchronous learning.

Figure 2: The learning activities in the processes of blended synchronous learning.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

19

Figure 3: A 4-in-1 video snapshot of implementing the CoI instructional approach in the course.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

Table 1: The teaching, social and cognitive presence sub-items.

Teaching presence Social presence Cognitive presence

Instructional management Emotional expression Triggering events

Building understanding Open communication Exploration

Direct instruction Group cohesion Integration

Resolution

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

21

Table 2: Intended effects of the CoI instructional approach in blended synchronous learning.

Instructional components Instructional methods Intended learning and teaching effects

Teaching presence A mix of direct and constructivist

instruction to facilitate and enhance

the face-to-face and online student

learning in the blended synchronous

learning mode.

Provide the student an initial understanding of

the knowledge, and then build their capacity

of structuring the knowledge and deepening

the initial understandings.

Exercise a form of instructional or educational

leadership that can lead to effective and

meaningful bended learning.

Teaching/social presence

intersection

Provide immediate feedback;

post timely questions for the face-to-

face and online students;

share finished learning artefacts

between the two groups of students.

Establish an appropriate social climate for in-

group and cross-group communication that

contributes to cultivating learning experience

in a blended social atmosphere.

Social presence Construction of learning through

peer participation, interaction and

support in a blended synchronous

communication.

Facilitate participation, collaboration, peer

evaluation and peer reflection that contributes

to forming a blended community of learning

and teaching experiences.

Social/cognitive presence

intersection

Facilitate learning activities;

moderate open and group

discussions and discourses;

reflect on the discussed content.

Support in-group and cross-group discussions

and discourses that enrich individual and

collective learning relationships and

contribute to constructive educational

experiences.

Cognitive presence Attainment of the intended learning

outcomes through quizzes,

presentation of individual exercises,

peer evaluation of group projects

and peer feedback on discussions

aimed at deeper levels of learning.

Construct a formative assessment scheme for

peer-supported learning that enhances both

the student learning and instructor teaching

experiences.

Teaching/cognitive

presence intersection

Present content knowledge;

explain theories;

demonstrate skills; and

link content knowledge with

learning activities.

Select appropriate content knowledge for the

students with various levels of teaching that

shape and consolidate student’ initial

understandings and instructor’s blended

instruction.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

22

Table 3: Sample coding of the data

Coding scheme Sample quotes

Teaching

presence

Instructional management

Building understanding

Direct instruction

Realisation of the pedagogical difference between the blended

synchronous learning and teaching modes (the instructor’s extract).

I paid attention to our learning during the session (an

online student’s extract).

Social

presence

Emotional expression

Open communication

Group cohesion

I pushed so hard to facilitate inter-group communication between the

two groups of students (the instructor’s extract).

We needed to share a microphone in inter-group communication

(a face-to-face student’s extract).

Cognitive

presence

Triggering events

Exploration

Integration

Resolution

Multi-screen presentation supported detailed explanation of the topics

and demonstration of the drawing skills (a face-to-face student’s

extract).

The assignment and quiz results did not show remarkable difference

between the two groups (the instructor’s extract).

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

23

Table 4: The key experiences highlighted in the teaching presence.

Teaching presence Online students Face-to-face students The instructor

Instructional

management

The teaching strategy

seemed better than face-

to-face.

Teaching was very

comprehensive.

This was extraordinary

compared with normal

class teaching.

Different attention was paid to the

online students so that the face-to-

face students seemed to be a

‘control group’ in an experiment.

Building

understanding

Deliberately-repeated

steps for skills

demonstration enhanced

clarity.

The topic was

exceptionally clear, but

overdone repetition

might make the

teaching a bit unnatural.

Repetition was more important to

the online students.

The online students could fully

grasp the content while the face-

to-face students did not feel bored

due to the steady pace.

Direct instruction Demonstration was really

good because the skill

processes were enlarged

on a big screen.

The presentation was

very detailed and at a

steady/ slow pace.

With a mix of direct and

constructivist instruction, I

experienced the pedagogical

difference and challenges.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

24

Table 5: The key experience highlighted in the social presence.

Social presence Online students Face-to-face students The instructor

Emotional

expression

We can feel a “real” sense

of attending ‘face-to-face’

teaching but the contact

with the face-to-face

students was short and

brief.

The tutor spent longer

facilitating the online students

in the Q & A sessions.

Interested in meeting other

students located at the remote

site

Adjusted my language use,

facial expressions and other

social cues to enhance

expressions directly and

explicitly.

Open

communication

Experienced short

transactional interactions

with the face-to-face

students for cross-group

activities.

Interaction with the online

students was difficult because

the students were not

physically present.

Used hand gestures for the

online group to facilitate their

responses, while repeatedly

probing the face-to-face group

for inter-group communication.

Group cohesion Collaborative activities with

the face-to-face students

were indirect in the

environment.

Multi-screen projection of the

online students enhanced a

sense of connected learning

communities at large.

Pushed so hard to facilitate the

two groups’ participation.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25

Table 6: The key experiences highlighted in the cognitive presence.

Cognitive

presence

Online students Face-to-face students The instructor

Triggering

events

Lacked live practice of the

knowledge learned together

with the instructor.

Responses to the instructor’s or the

online students’ questions could

encourage knowledge sharing.

The students were

spontaneous when engaging

in group learning activities.

Exploration Satisfactory learning together

with the other group was

facilitated in the close to ‘real

face-to-face’ environment.

Attained the expected learning

outcomes with diverse activities for

exploration with the online students

Additional stimulation of

group communicative

interactions was required.

Integration Assignments could be

completed more easily.

Engineering knowledge and

computer-aided drawing skills were

gained in these activities.

The assignment and quiz

results did not show

remarkable difference

between the two groups.

Resolution Engineering knowledge and

drawing skills became

familiar more quickly.

Solving the drawing problems

seems challenging in the blended

synchronous learning mode

The two groups might be

disengaged in learning

sometimes.