�������� ����� ��
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: [email protected]
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.