Instrument to analyse communication in a Community of Inquiry when using emerging methodologies

  1. Keidy García Lira
  2. Elba Gutiérrez-Santiuste
Revista:
Revista Fuentes

ISSN: 1575-7072,  2172-7775

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 24

Volumen: 2

Páginas: 184-195

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista Fuentes

Resumen

There is a growing interest in learning in Higher Education using flipped classroom and m-learning. This study constructs an original instrument to obtain information on the levels perceived by the students of the three presences of the Community of Inquiry model with these emerging methodologies. The instrument consists of 21 items, based on the instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008), which were adapted to flipped classroom and m-learning. This instrument was distributed to 121 students from two different universities. Cochran's Qtest was run to verify whether there was agreement between the opinions of five experts. Student t-test results for independent samples indicate similarity in the opinions of the two groups of students. Information analysis techniques, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability tests were also used to validate it. The analysis revealed three factors coinciding with cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence as proposed by the theoretical model. Cronbach's Alpha confirmed the reliability ofthe tool as a whole α= .957and its several dimensions. The results indicate that it is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the levels perceived by the students of the three presences of the Community of Inquiry model when using flipped classroom and m-learning

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
  • Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033
  • Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). Horizon report 2019 higher education edition. EDU19. EDUCAUSE. https://tinyurl.com/wyjnnbvn
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1.1.95.9117
  • 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. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
  • Ballesteros, B., Gil-Jaurena, I., & Morentin, J. (2019). Validation of the Spanish version of the “Community of Inquiry” survey. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 59(4), 1–26.
  • Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.001
  • Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  • Carlon, S., Bennett-Woods, D., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, K., Marcisz, N., Mulhall, M., Noteboom, T., Snedden, T., Whalen, K., & Zenoni, L. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and results in online health care disciplines. Computers & Education, 59, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.004
  • Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002
  • Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends, 64(4), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
  • Chen, R. H. (2022). Effects of deliberate practice on blended learning sustainability: A community of inquiry perspective. Sustainability, 14(3), 1785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031785
  • Cochran, W. G. (1950). The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika, 37(3/4), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332378
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  • Diaz, S. R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.004
  • Elosua, P., & Zumbo, B. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema, 20(5), 896–901. https://bit.ly/3IZFHw3
  • Espinoza, S. C., & Novoa-Muñoz, F. (2018). Ventajas del alfa ordinal respecto al alfa de Cronbach ilustradas con la encuesta AUDIT-OMS. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica, 42(e65), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.65
  • Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles Del Psicologo, 31(1), 18–33. https://bit.ly/372PZyq
  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd editio). SAGE Publications.
  • Floy, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instrument. Psychological Assesment, 7(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
  • Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  • Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
  • González Alonso, J., & Pazmiño Santacruz, M. (2015). Cálculo e interpretación del Alfa de Cronbach para el caso de validación de la consistencia interna de un cuestionario, con dos posibles escalas tipo Likert. Revista Publicando, 2(2), 62–67.
  • Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2015). Cognitive presence through social and teaching presence in communities of inquiry: A correlational – predictive study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1666
  • Heilporn, G., & Lakhal, S. (2020). Investigating the reliability and validity of the community of inquiry framework: An analysis of categories within each presence. Computers & Education, 145, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712
  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
  • Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6th ed.). MrGraw-Hill.
  • Ireri, B. N., & Omwenga, E. I. (2016). Mobile learning: A bridging technology of learner entry behavior in a flipped classroom model. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of research on active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age (pp. 106–121). Idea Group,U.S.
  • Jou, M., Tennyson, R. D., Wang, J., & Huang, S. Y. (2016). A study on the usability of E-books and APP in engineering courses: A case study on mechanical drawing. Computers and Education, 92–93, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.004
  • Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401–415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817
  • Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(2), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1979.11969385
  • Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
  • Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Hatala, M., & Adesope, O. (2015). Analytics of communities of inquiry: Effects of learning technology use on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.002
  • Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S., Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in Massive Open Online Courses. Computer & Education, 119, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010
  • Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.002
  • Lau, Y., Tang, Y. M., Chau, K. Y., Vyas, L., & Sandoval-hernandez, A. (2021). COVID-19 crisis: exploring community of inquiry in online learning for sub-degree students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 679197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679197
  • Lawrence-Benedict, H., Pfahl, M., & Smith, S. J. (2019). Community of Inquiry in online education: Using student evaluative data for assessment and strategic development. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 25, 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100208
  • Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: A practical guide revised and updated. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
  • López-Aguado, M., & Gutiérrez-Provecho, L. (2019). Cómo realizar e interpretar un análisis factorial exploratorio utilizando SPSS. REIRE Revista d’Innovació i Recerca En Educació, 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2019.12.227057
  • Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2014). Problems measuring social presence in a community of inquiry. E–Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.19
  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.4.1.84
  • Mills, J., Yates, K., Harrison, H., Woods, C., Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Trueman, S., & Hitchins, M. (2016). Using a community of inquiry framework to teach a nursing and midwifery research subject: an evaluative study. Nurse Education Today, 43, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.016
  • Morata-Ramirez, M. Á., Holgado Tello, F. P., Barbero-García, M. I., & Mendez, G. (2015). Análisis factorial confirmatorio. Recomendaciones sobre mínimos cuadrados no ponderados en función del error Tipo I de Ji-Cuadrado y RMSEA. Acción Psicológica, 12(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.12.1.14362
  • Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
  • Olpak, Y. Z., & Kiliç Çakmak, E. (2018). Examining the reliability and validity of a turkish version of the community of inquiry survey. Online Learning, 22(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.990
  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual, a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
  • Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
  • Sen-Akbulut, M., Umutlu, D., Oner, D., & Arikan, S. (2022). Exploring university students’ learning experiences in the covid-19 semester through the community of inquiry framework. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 1–18. https://bit.ly/3IZqgoo
  • Sidiropoulou, Z., & Mavroidis, I. (2019). The relation between the three dimensions of the Community of Inquiry and the learning styles of students in a distance education programme. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(23), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i23.11564
  • Sun, Y., Franklin, T., & Gao, F. (2017). Learning outside of classroom: Exploring the active part of an informal online English learning community in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12340
  • Swan, K. P., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. Ben. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12. https://bit.ly/3JVdesE
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  • Wu, C. H. (2007). An empirical study on the transformation of Likert-scale data to numerical scores. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 1(58), 2851–2862. https://tinyurl.com/4zcm85wa
  • Yu, T., & Richardson, J. C. (2015). Examining reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Community of Inquiry instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.004
  • Zhang, R. (2020). Exploring blended learning experiences through the community of inquiry framework. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10125/44707
  • Zhang, Y. A. (2015). Handbook of mobile teaching and learning. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54146-9
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet