Content uploaded by Mustafa Yagci
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mustafa Yagci on Oct 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol. 11(12), pp. 1085-1092, 23 June, 2016
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2016.2758
Article Number: 8AAF85459015
ISSN 1990-3839
Copyright © 2016
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Educational Research and Reviews
Full Length Research Paper
Determination of perception of community of inquiry
Yusuf Ziya Olpak*, Mustafa Yağci and Uğur Başarmak
Faculty of Education, Ahi Evran University, 40100 Kirşehir, Turkey.
Received 3 January, 2016; Accepted 12 May, 2016
Community of inquiry (CoI) is the conceptual framework which describes critical prerequisite factors for
deep and meaningful learning in online learning environments. Based on the literature concerning the
CoI framework, it can be observed that studies in which three factors in the model (cognitive, social and
teaching presence) were investigated have been increased as scales to determine perception towards
CoI have been developed, which thus made it possible to work on relatively larger sampling groups
effectively and to increase generalizability of findings. In this context, within the scope of the present
research, by investigating different data collection tools developed by different researchers, studies
aiming to determine CoI perception by means of a scale were investigated in detail. Research results
reveals that CoI survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) has been widely accepted in the
literature; and that the instrument has been adapted to number of languages such as Turkish, Korean
and Arabic; and employed in diverse disciplines such as education, business and health care.
Key words: Community of inquiry, cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence.
INTRODUCTION
Community of inquiry (CoI) framework suggested by
Garrison et al. (2000) in their study for deep and
meaningful learning in online learning environments is a
conceptual framework which describes critical
prerequisite elements for successful education outcome
in higher education. According to the review of the
relevant literature, it was observed that the precursor
study conducted by Garrison et al. (2000) has attracted
the attention of number of scholars who especially work
on distance education and this has been cited 2,975
times according to Google Scholar data (as of January
1st, 2016). Since its introduction, the CoI framework has
been verified structurally by various studies (Akyol and
Garrison, 2008; Arbaugh, 2007; Arbaugh et al., 2008;
Garrison et al., 2004, 2010; Kozan and Richardson,
2014; Yu and Richardson, 2015); and it is claimed that
learning could be enhanced by developing interaction
among these three basic elements of cognitive, social
and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000).
According to the review of studies investigating the CoI
framework, number of studies examining all three
elements included in the model has been increased,
while numbers of survey instruments allowing deter-
mination of CoI perception have been increased. Thus, it
has been possible to work with larger sampling groups
more effectively and to increase generalizability of
findings. In this context, along the next sections of the
study, in addition to information regarding the CoI
framework and its basic components, studies on
determination of degree of CoI perception by means of
*Corresponding author. E-mail: yusuf@ahievran.edu.tr.
Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
1086 Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 1. Community of inquiry coding template.
Elements
Categories
Indicators (examples only)
Cognitive Presence
Triggering Event
Sense of puzzlement
Exploration
Information exchange
Integration
Connecting ideas
Resolution
Apply new ideas
Social Presence
Emotional Expression
Emotions
Open Communication
Risk-free expression
Group Cohesion
Encouraging collaboration
Teaching Presence
Instructional Management
Defining and initiating discussion topics
Building Understanding
Sharing personal meaning
Direct Instruction
Focusing discussion
various scales were presented; and finally, result and
suggestions were reported based on investigated
researches.
COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK
In the study of Garrison et al. (2000), categories and
sample indicators are developed as a coding template to
investigate basic elements in the CoI for convenient
application and sensitivity concerns (Table 1). Indicators
in the coding template are composed of keywords,
frequently repeated expressions or their synonyms.
According to Table 1, within the CoI framework coding
template, categories regarding cognitive, social and
teaching presence and sample indicator relevant with
each individual category are presented. These elements
in the CoI framework can either increase or decrease
quality of learning outputs and educational experience
according to authors. Accordingly, one of the issues that
can be faced by educators can be CoI in virtual
environments (Garrison et al., 2000).
Cognitive presence
Cognitive presence is described as one of the three
elements in the CoI framework; but, there is critical
thinking on its foundation and it is functionalized through
practical inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2001). Critical
thinking concept utilized from this point is structured by
making use of Dewey's (1933) reflective thinking model.
For Dewey, it has practical value which deepens meaning
of our reflective or critical thinking experiences (Garrison
and Anderson, 2003). In this regard, the critical thinking
approach utilized at this point is comprehensive; and it
includes creativity, problem solving, intuition and insight
(Garrison and Archer, 2000; As cited in Garrison et al.,
2001). In Figure 1, two-dimensional and practical research
model is structured on experience (Dewey, 1933; As
cited in Garrison and Anderson, 2003). Whereas, the first
dimension of the model reflects the continuity between
action and thinking about it, the second dimension
represents the transition between concrete and abstract
universes (Garrison et al., 2001).
Practical inquiry model consists of four stages with
respect to educational context and especially to describe
cognitive presence in online learning. Details on each
stage in the practical inquiry model were explained below
(Garrison et al., 2001).
The first stage of the model reflects beginning step for
the critical research; and it is referred as triggering event.
At this step, status of problem or dilemma based on
experiences is defined. It is preferred that problem or
dilemma that will be defined at this step are related to
previous studies or experiences of students (Garrison
and Anderson, 2003). In educational context, lecturers
can create triggering events by means of difficulties in
learning or tasks. Additionally, in more democratic and
non-hierarchal practices such as computer conferencing,
any group member can also add a triggering event on
purpose or indirectly. In this process, role of the teacher
is to commence and form triggering events; and in some
cases, is to ensure that focuses of learners to remain on
path to the target education outputs by eliminating
potentially distracting ones.
The second step of the model is exploration. Students,
at this stage, try to understand every nature of the
problem first; then, they make possible explanations and
do research for appropriate information. This research
can be conducted through more special activities such as
group activities and brain storming or literature review
(Garrison and Anderson, 2003). Students, at the end of
this stage, will start to be more selective regarding what
is more appropriate as subject or what is appropriate for
problem.
The third stage is integration. At this stage, a meaning
is constructed based on the opinions manufactured at the
Olpak et al. 1087
Figure 1. Practical inquiry model.
exploration step. Students, at the transition period from
exploration step, would take how to describe and
integrate the subject or event into consideration; and
would start assessing applicability of opinions. This is the
stage most difficult to determine in terms of teaching or
research. Evidences for integration of opinions and
structuring of meaning can be deducted from the
communication in the CoI. This stage requires an effective
teaching presence so that it could be a model for critical
thinking process; and provide additional information so as
to determine misconceptions, to probe and secure
maintenance of commenting and cognitive development.
The fourth and final stage of the practical inquiry model
is resolution. Students put information that they acquired
at this stage into practice directly or indirectly. Progress
toward the fourth stage necessitates exposure of
expectations deliberately and opportunity for students to
test the information they have just gained. Moreover,
results at the resolution stage could yield new problems
and create new triggering events. Then, this process
restarts from the beginning for new triggering events; and
thus, continuous learning is incented on continuous base.
In sum, practical inquiry model reflects critical thinking
process. This means creating a cognitive presence
(Garrison et al., 2001). In this context, cognitive presence
can be described as a research process to describe
problem, searching for appropriate content and opinions,
integration of opinions created within a meaningful
structure or solution, and testing usefulness of output
directly or indirectly (Garrison, 2006). Moreover, it is also
important to understand that unlike special personal
learning outputs, higher order thinking process is focused
on cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2001), the most
difficult to create and to develop with respect to other
elements within the CoI framework in online courses
(Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007). Similarly, in the study of
Akyol and Garrison (2011), it is reported that establishing
and maintaining deep learning and cognitive presence
online and blended learning environments depend on the
dynamic balance among cognitive, social and teaching
presence. Results of the study reported by Shea and
Bidjerano (2009) indicate that experiences of students
regarding teaching presence affect their perception
toward social presence directly; and social and teaching
presence contributes directly to quality of students‟
cognitive presence. Archibald's (2010) study employs the
CoI survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al.
(2008) as well; and the results suggest that teaching and
social presence explain 69% of the variance in cognitive
presence.
Social presence
Social presence concept, one of the three basic elements
of the CoI framework, was first used by Short et al.
(1976); and it was described as “degree of perception of
each person in interpersonal relationships” (As cited in:
Kim et al., 2011); and it is considered as one of the core
concepts in online learning (Lowenthal and Dunlap,
2010). Review of the relevant literature reveals that social
presence is defined differently by various researchers
(Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997; Kang et al., 2007; Tu
and McIsaac, 2002); and it can especially be observed
that presence feeling of individuals and degree of
establishing communication with other participants in
online learning environments were addressed. If social
presence concept is nested within the CoI framework, it is
1088 Educ. Res. Rev.
described as “ability of learners to project themselves
socially and emotionally in the CoI” (Rourke et al., 2001).
However, according to Garrison (2009), since social
presence concept has been substantially differentiated
from its original conceptualization over time and this
description has socio-emotional structure to the great
extent, it does not fully reflect presence concept in
establishing a purposeful educational group. Therefore,
Garrison (2009) updated the definition of the social
presence concept as “the ability of participants to identify
with the community (e.g., course of study), to
communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and
to develop inter-personal relationships by way of
expressing their individual personalities”.
Of the core elements within the CoI framework, the
most extensively studied element in the relevant literature
is social presence (Arbaugh, 2007). For instance, results
of the study, which investigates effect of the social
presence perception on student satisfaction in computer-
based conference, conducted by Gunawardena and Zittle
(1997) suggest that social presence perception is
significant determinant in satisfaction in text-based
computer conference. Moreover, positive correlation
between social presence perception and students‟
learning perceptions is reported by Richardson and Swan
(2003); a significant correlation between social presence
perception and satisfaction with online discussions is
reported by Swan and Shih (2005); and social presence
perception has significant influence on students‟ cognitive
learning, their satisfaction with learning process, with the
participants of the relevant activities, and with learning
outputs (Lu et at., 2007). The study of Tu and McIsaac
(2002) investigates dimensions of social presence
through qualitative and quantitative methods; and
suggests that social presence is an essential element
which affects online interactions. Additionally, there are
other studies which shows that privacy could affect
degree of social presence perception (Tu and McIsaac,
2002; Tu, 2001, 2002).
According to Garrison and Anderson (2003), the
essential question is how to create social presence in
supporting the CoI and critical reflective thinking in an
online learning environment. Researchers answer this
question as that it is necessary to be aware of the fact
that social presence could be at the most appropriate
level because group with low social presence cannot be
maintained, the one with high level could prevent
disagreements but this could encourage superficial
comments and social chats.
Teaching presence
Another dimension within the framework of the CoI,
teaching presence, is described by Anderson et al.
(2001) as designing, facilitating and directing of cognitive
and social processes to create meaningful personal
learning and valuable learning outputs in terms of
teaching. Based on this definition, teaching presence, in
conformity with aimed outputs and students‟ needs and
talents, integrates all elements in the CoI framework by
means of balanced functional relationship (Garrison and
Anderson, 2003). Anderson et al. (2001) suggested that
all participants can contribute to teaching presence in
online courses; and therefore, instead of “teacher
presence”, “teaching presence” reference was found
suitable. According to Anderson et al. (2001), teaching
presence commences before the course starting time
(includes studies and plans related with the course); and
it continues along the course period (in this process,
lecturer facilitates discussions and provides direct
education when necessary).
Within the computer conference context in online
courses, Anderson et al. (2001), under the scope of their
study on establishing and maintaining teaching presence,
developed a tool to determine teaching presence and
described various parameters under three main
categories: “Design and Organization”, “Facilitating
Discourse” and “Direct Instruction”. Based on the review
of the relevant literature, it was observed that numbers of
studies on teaching presence are important for a quality
learning experience (Arbaugh and Hwang, 2006;
Chakraborty and Nafukho, 2015; de la Varre et al., 2011;
Ice et al., 2007; Morgan, 2011; Shea et al., 2003a, b,
2005, 2006, 2010); and the coding template developed
by Anderson et al. (2001) was utilized by numbers of
researchers (Arbaugh and Hwang, 2006; Shea et al.,
2003a, b; 2006).
METHODOLOGY
How to determine community of inquiry perception?
This section reports on the researches aiming at assessing the CoI
perception through a scale, a method different from the content
analysis, as a result of a literature review on assessment of the CoI
perception (Arbaugh, 2007; Arbaugh et al., 2008; Garrison et al.,
2004) in a chronological order. The first research obtained in this
scope was study of Garrison et al. (2004). In this preliminary study
reported by them, on the basis of the CoI model developed by
Garrison et al. (2000), a scale consisted of 28 items which also
includes three basic elements (cognitive, social and teaching
presence) in the CoI framework was developed. Five response
choices were provided ranging from much better to much worse.
The developed scale was applied to 65 students from 2 different
graduate programs at the Athabasca University; and obtained
results were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis. Although,
exploratory factor analysis results confirm the structure with three
factors in the CoI framework, it was reported that some items are
related to more than one factor. The small sample size used for this
exploratory analysis may have been responsible for the failure of
Garrison, Cleveland-Innes and Fung‟s questionnaire items to
clearly load on their intended factors.
Arbaugh (2007) developed a scale in his study by utilizing from
various studies (Garrison et al., 2001; Gunawardena and Zittle,
1997; Richardson and Swan, 2003; Sheaet al., 2003; Short et al.,
1976); and used a seven-point Likert scale in the study including
answer options in the range of “strongly agree” and “strongly
disagree”. The study data was collected from 667 graduate students
taking different courses at an MBA program from 55 different
universities across the United States during the period between
February 2004 and January 2006. At the end of the research, the
scale used was confirmed as four-factor structured (teaching
presence, cognitive presence, social presence and course design
and organization). Although “course design and organization,” as
one of the sub-dimensions in teaching presence, was
conceptualized, it was stated as a result of this study, that it was
standing out as an individual factor.
Arbaugh et al. (2008) aimed to develop a reliable and valid
instrument for the CoI in their study as well. Within this scope, it
was suggested that generability of studies conducted over a single
institution would be limited; and in the summer season of 2007, 287
graduate students from educational sciences and business
management majors in four different education institutions providing
online education in the United States and Canada were included in
the study. In scoring of the scale consisted of 34 items developed
by researchers, point degree between (0=Certainly Disagree) and
(4=Certainly Agree) was used. Conducted analyses confirmed that
conceptual framework of the CoI composed of cognitive, social and
teaching presence. It was reported that this developed scale can be
employed in assessment of the education given by various
stakeholders such as course designers, program administrators and
lecturers. According to detailed examination of conducted studies
so far, it can be observed that the instrument used in the study of
Swan et al., (2008) and the one used in the study of Arbaugh et al.,
(2008) were same. This is because of different articles published
about the subject by researchers who used to be member of the
instrument development team. However, in the development
process of this survey instrument, if the study published by Arbaugh
et al. (2007) is taken into consideration, it is possible to claim that
the original instrument was developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008).
Additionally the study conducted by Arbaugh et al. (2008) has been
cited 254 times according to Google Scholar data (Feb 24, 2016).
The Col survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008)
caught attention of several researchers working on distance
education. Beyond this point, different versions of the instrument,
related studies and disciplines are explained related to Col Survey
instrument.
Arbaugh et al. (2010) investigated differences among cognitive,
social and teaching presence perceptions of students from different
disciplines. In collection of data within the scope of research,
Arbaugh et al.'s (2008) CoI survey instrument was employed with
seven-point degree. In this context, data was collected from 1,582
students from two different education institutions in the U.S. during
the period between fall semesters of 2007 and 2008. Students in
the sampling group were from both undergraduate and graduate
levels in different majors; and they study either blended or fully
online learning environments. Researchers were supported
concerning practicability of the CoI model in terms of disciplinary
differences. Study results reveal that there are remarkable
opportunities for potential studies in the future in examining how
CoI framework‟s elements could be effective and and be influenced
by other various academic disciplines. Additionally, how this
framework could be advanced or upgraded in order to explain
course efficiency in core disciplines.
The purpose of the study conducted by Bangert (2009) was to
test the validity of the CoI survey instrument developed by Arbaugh
et al. (2008). To that end, the CoI survey instrument suggested by
Arbaugh et al. (2008) was applied to 1,173 undergraduate and
graduate level students in the blended or fully online learning
environments in primarily educational science departments of
medium sized universities located in the western part of the United
States during spring semester of 2008 academic year. Different
from the original scale, ordinal responses were scored using the
scale (1=Strongly Disagree) to (6=Strongly Agree). Finally, it was
reported that the CoI survey instrument was suitable tool to
determine and to enhance educational quality of faculties. Beside,
Olpak et al. 1089
since Garrison and Vaughn (2007) indicates that CoI model is
appropriate for blended online courses, within the scope of the
present research, unlike the preliminary research where the original
scale was developed, data was collected from students who receive
fully online education in addition to the ones receiving blended
online education.
In the study conducted by Shea and Bidjerano (2009), it was
aimed to assess practicability of the CoI framework in definition,
explanation and ultimately development of learning in online
education environments. In data collection process, Arbaugh et al.'s
(2008) CoI survey instrument was employed. However, 12th item
was used differently than the original scale. In scoring of scale
items, degree from (1=Strongly Agree) to (5= Strongly Disagree)
was used. Moreover, for each item, the participants had the option
to indicate that they choose not to answer the question by selecting
„„N/A”. Collected data was screed for missing values, univariate and
multivariate outliers; and they were downsized from 2,605 to 2,159
by 17% reduction. The research results indicate that survey items
conform to the structures specified in the CoI framework. Moreover,
it was reported that structures related with the cognitive, social and
teaching presence and the CoI framework were useful model in
description, explanation and development of online education.
Noteboom and Claywell (2010) reported in their study that results of
Shea and Bidjerano's (2009) study were supporting the CoI
framework, but it is not open for generalizations to the disciplines
such as health care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess
students‟ perceptions of cognitive, social and teaching presence.
Within the research scope, the version of the CoI survey instrument
employed by Shea and Bidjerano (2009) was used; and data
collected from 337 students who are registered with several online
health care programs in the United States was studied. When
Noteboom and Claywell (2010) conducted a factor analysis, they
ended up with similar results of the study by Shea and Bidjerano
(2009). The only difference that they found was two items, which
loaded, unexpectedly in a different factor. An item had loaded on
social presence instead of teaching presence, and another item had
loaded on cognitive presence rather than social presence.
The primary purpose of the study of Carlon et al. (2012) was to
confirm the structure of the CoI model with health care discipline.
To that end, students receiving 38 different online courses from
graduate and undergraduate programs of nursing, physical therapy
and health care administration (including health information
management students) were asked to respond the version of the
CoI survey instrument published by Shea and Bidjerano (2009) and
to provide some relevant demographical information. In the end,
totally 330 valid respond were collected from these students. Study
results confirmed the survey instrument in the health care discipline.
However, conducted additional factor analyses suggested that
there is potential fourth factor in the model. This finding conforms to
other studies reported in the literature (Bangert, 2009; Díaz, Swan,
Ice, and Kupczynski, 2010; Shea and Bidjerano, 2009). In aforesaid
studies, while evidences concerning the fact that teaching presence
has two-factored structure were provided, in the scope of the
present study, it was indicated that the structure of the social
presence would include two-factors: social comfort and social
experience as well.
Boston et al. (2009) stated in their study that attrition rates in
online learning programs were higher with respect to face-to-face
programs; and the correlation between CoI framework parameters
and student persistence was investigated. Aforesaid research was
conducted on 28,877 students in the American Public University
System (APUS is an online, for-profit university) who receive
bachelor or associate level courses and who filled in CoI survey
instrument. When items in the CoI survey instrument employed in
the research scope were considered, it can be seen that there are
certain differences with respect to the CoI survey instrument
developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008); and that it possesses the same
items used in the CoI survey instrument developed by Díaz et al.
1090 Educ. Res. Rev.
(2010).
Discrepantly from previous studies, Díaz et al. (2010) did not only
tested validity of CoI survey instrument, but also respondents were
asked to express their opinions concerning significance of each
item; then, obtained data was analyzed. Within the scope of the
study, CoI survey instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008)
was taken as the basis; however, some amendments made on
certain items in the scale (12th and 28th items). Within the scope of
this study, totally 412 undergraduate and graduate degree students
from four different institutions in the United States were included in
the study. Items in the scale were scored through 5-point
conventional Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree) to (5=Strongly
Agree), while item importance ratings utilized an ordinal scale with
the same range of quantitative values (1=Unimportant; 2=Somewhat
Important; 3=Important; 4=Very Important; 5=Extremely Important).
Research results confirmed triple-structure of the CoI framework.
Study of Kozan and Richardson (2014) aims to investigate factor
structure of adapted version of the CoI survey instrument
developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008). To that end, the CoI survey
instrument suggested by Díaz et al. (2010) was employed to assess
students‟ cognitive, social and teaching presence perceptions. The
research data were collected from graduate students pursuing a
fully online Learning, Design, and Technology Master of Science
Program in a College of Education. In this regard, totally 643
answered the survey appropriately; and obtained answers were
randomly divided into two groups for the EFAs (N=352) and CFAs
(N=291). However, since some students were enrolled in multiple
courses, repeating answers were substracted and EFAs (N=219)
and CFAs (N=178) were conducted on basis of answers received
from singular respondents. Results of the study validated the CoI.
However, it was emphasized that it should be reminded during the
assessment that only students in one university were participated in
the study. Furthermore, since only students receiving online
courses were included in this study, it will be possible to obtain
better understanding of the CoI survey instrument if participation of
students receiving courses in blended learning environments and
inclusion of students from different educational institutions could be
ensured in the future studies.
In the study of Alaulamie (2014), it was investigated that whether
cognitive, social and teaching presence were significant predictors
of satisfaction of students in online programs offered by the
prominent Saudi universities. In determination of students‟
cognitive, social and teaching presence perceptions, Arbaugh et
al.'s (2008) CoI survey instrument was utilized after it was adapted
to the Arabic. Answer options of the survey instrument items were
consisted of “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree” and
“Strongly Disagree”. Data employed within the scope of the
research were collected from 2,442 students who answered
questions in data collection tool appropriately. Research findings
suggest that Arabic version of the CoI survey was valid and reliable.
Factor analysis showed that items were loading appropriately in the
expected factor. Only one item in the instrument, which is item 24,
was showing a cross loading issue. This item could be dropped for
future uses or it may need more investigation by researchers.
Yu and Richardson's (2015) study aims to investigate validity and
reliability of Korean version of the CoI survey instrument for online
learning. To that end, the CoI survey developed by Arbaugh et al.
(2008) was translated into Korean; and it was structured according
to 5-point Likert scale with degrees from (1=Strongly Disagree) to
(5=Strongly Agree). This survey was applied on 995 undergraduate
students who were attending fully online courses at the Cyber
University in Korea. Study results suggest that internal consistency
reliability of the Korean version of the CoI survey was high and that
three-factor structure was supported.
Arbaugh et al.'s (2008) CoI survey instrument was adapted into
Turkish by various researchers (Horzum, 2015; Küçük, 2013;
Öztürk, 2012). The study reported by Öztürk (2012) was including
140 students who study at computer and educational technologies
teaching departments from faculties of educational science at four
different public universities during the academic year between 2010
and 2011 in Turkey. The survey instrument was developed in four-
point Likert model with degrees from “Strongly Disagree(1),
Disagree(2), Agree(3) and Strongly Agree(4)”. Collected data
during research was incurred in confirmatory factor analysis; finally,
three-factored structure in the original scale was verified on basis of
conducted reliability and validity analyses. Regarding Turkish
version of the survey, a survey composed of 34 items under three
sub-factors was obtained. The study reported by Küçük (2013) was
conducted according to the data collected from 241 students who
attend faculty of educational sciences and registered with computer
course provided in blended learning environment. Answer options
of the survey instrument items were consisted of “Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Agree and Strongly Agree”.
According to the analyses conducted based on the data collected
during research, the three-factored structure of the original survey
was verified; and a survey composed of 34 items under three sub-
factors was obtained in the Turkish format of the survey. The
sampling group of the study of Horzum (2015) was consisted of 277
online graduate students from nine different programs at a public
university. The survey items were scored using the scale from
(1=Strongly Disagree) to (5=Strongly Agree). According to the
analyses conducted based on data collected during the research,
the three-factored structure of the original survey was verified; and
a survey composed of 34 items under three sub-factors was
obtained in the Turkish format of the survey.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Finally, it is observed that different data collection tools
have been developed by various researchers in
assessment of CoI perception (Arbaugh, 2007; Arbaugh
et al., 2008; Garrison et al., 2004). However, of these
data collection tools, it is possible to state that the most
frequently used and the one adopted the most commonly
in the literature is the CoI survey instrument developed by
Arbaugh et al. (2008). It was also observed that Arbaugh
et al.'s (2008) CoI survey was adapted into various
languages such as Turkish, Korean and Arabic
(Alaulamie, 2014; Horzum, 2015; Küçük, 2013; Öztürk,
2012; Yu and Richardson, 2015); and that it has been
employed in various disciplines such as educational
sciences, business management, and health care
(Arbaugh et al., 2010; Arbaugh, 2013; Bangert, 2009;
Carlon et al., 2012).
On the basis of detailed investigation of studies utilized
from CoI survey developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008);
(i) Majority of these studies were conducted in the United
States and Canada,
(ii) Studies were conducted on various sampling groups
with different sizes from both single or multiple
institutions,
(iii) Studies included students from different degrees
(bachelor, associate, undergraduate and graduate) who
receive courses in fully online or blended online learning
environments,
(iv) As answer options of items included in survey
instruments, various scale ranges were utilized (0-4; 1-4;
1-5; 1-6; 1-7 etc.),
(v) It was observed that students take different variables
tought to be relevant with CoI perception such as
education level (undergraduate, graduate etc.), grade
level, number of online course, online course
implementation (fully online or blended), major discipline,
gender and age into consideration.
Accordingly, in the future researches, new studies, which
investigate differences mentioned above, can be
planned. Additionally, further research is called for to
explore the dynamic relationships among the presences
across disciplines and institutions as well as understand
the existence and role of the specific sub-elements
(categories) of each presence.
The CoI survey instrument was developed in the study
of Arbaugh et al. (2008) conducted on 287 graduate level
students, who receive fully online courses, while this
survey utilized a degree system between (0=Strongly
Disagree) and (4=Strongly Agree). In the study of
Bangert (2009), the CoI survey developed by Arbaugh et
al. (2008) was conducted on 1,173 undergraduate and
graduate students who study in blended or fully online
learning environments. Furthermore, unlike the original
survey, ordinal responses were scored using the scale
(1=strongly disagree) to (6=strongly agree). Shea and
Bidjerano (2009) employed the CoI survey developed by
Arbaugh et al. (2008) as well. However, 12th item in the
original survey was amended. In scoring of the items in
the survey, degrees from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
disagree) were used; and “the participants had the option
to indicate that they choose not to answer the question by
selecting „N/A‟” used as an option for each item. When
items in the CoI survey was shared in the interactive
website of https://coi.athabascau.ca, which aims to share
and discuss researches on the CoI framework (CoI
Survey, 2015) are examined, it can be observed that they
were the same with the ones used in the scope of this
research; but their scoring was different. Whereas this
research used degrees from (1=strongly agree) to
(5=strongly disagree); and it offered respondents to avoid
items, in the CoI survey published in the website, 5-point
Likert degree from (1=strongly disagree) to (5=strongly
agree) was used. Díaz et al. (2010) employed the CoI
survey developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) as basis; but,
some items (12th and 28th) in the survey were amended.
Items in the survey were degreed between (1=strongly
disagree) and (5=strongly agree). Items used in this
research were referred and exhibited in Appendix A at
the end of the article under the title “Community of Inquiry
Survey Instrument” (draft v15) developed by Ben
Arbaugh, Marti Cleveland-Innes, Sebastian Diaz, Randy
Garrison, Phil Ice, Jennifer Richardson, Peter Shea and
Karen Swan. Since the CoI survey (“CoI Survey,” 2015)
was referred in the website in which postings were
published and relevant to the CoI framework, it is
possible to state that the survey employed within the
scope of this research can be considered as newer draft.
Olpak et al. 1091
Therefore, for the studies that would be conducted in
the future, amendments on the original survey developed
by Arbaugh et al. (2008) could be taken into
consideration so that new researches can be conducted
in which different versions of the survey are compared.
Moreover, by taking changes in survey items and scoring
system of items into consideration, new studies can be
planned on adaptation of CoI survey instrument to
different languages.
Conflict of Interests
The authors have not declared any conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
Akyol Z, Garrison DR (2008). The development of a community of
inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression
and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. J.
Asynchronous Learn. Networks 12(3):3-22.
Akyol Z, Garrison DR (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an
online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and
processes for deep approaches to learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol.
42(2):233-250.
Alaulamie LA (2014). Teaching presence, social presence, and
cognitive presence as predictors of students' satisfaction in an online
program at a Saudi University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Ohio University, USA.
Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W (2001). Assessing
teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. J.
Asynchronous Learn. Networks 5(2):1-17.
Arbaugh JB (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry
framework. J. Asynchronous Learn. Networks 11(1):73-85.
Arbaugh JB (2013). Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course
outcomes relationships in online MBA courses? Internet Higher Educ.
17:16-28.
Arbaugh JB, Bangert A, Cleveland-Innes M (2010). Subject matter
effects and the community of inquiry (coi) framework: An exploratory
study. Internet Higher Educ. 13(1):37-44.
Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Diaz S, Garrison DR, Ice P,
Richardson JC, Shea P, Swan K (2007).Community of inquiry
framework: Validation and instrument development. Paper presented
at the 13th Annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online
Learning, Orlando, FL.
Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Diaz SR, Garrison DR, Ice P,
Richardson JC, Swan KP (2008). Developing a community of inquiry
instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework
using a multi-institutional sample. Internet Higher Educ. 11(3):133-
136.
Arbaugh JB, Hwang A (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online
MBA courses? Internet Higher Educ. 9(1):9-21.
Archibald D (2010). Fostering the development of cognitive presence:
Initial findings using the community of inquiry survey instrument.
Internet Higher Educ. 13(1-2):73-74.
Bangert AW (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of
inquiry survey instrument. Internet Higher Educ. 12(2):104-111.
Boston W, Diaz SR, Gibson AM, Ice P, Richardson J, Swan K (2009).
An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the
community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. J.
Asynchronous Learn. Networks 13(3):67-83.
Carlon S, Bennett-Woods D, Berg B, Claywell L, LeDuc K, Marcisz N,
Zenoni L (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and
results in online health care disciplines. Computers Educ. 59(2):215-
221.
Chakraborty M, Nafukho FM (2015). Strategies for virtual learning
environments: Focusing on teaching presence and teaching
1092 Educ. Res. Rev.
immediacy. Internet Learn. 4(1).
CoI Survey (2015). Retrieved November 28, 2015, from
https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/coi-survey/
de la Varre C, Keane J, Irvin MJ (2011). Dual perspectives on the
contribution of on-site facilitators to teaching presence in a blended
learning environment. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de
l‟Éducation à Distance 25(3).
Dewey J (1933). How we think. Boston: MA: D.C. Heath.
Díaz SR, 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 Higher Educ.
13(1):22-30.
Garrison DR (2006). Online collaboration principles. J. Asynchronous
Learn. Networks 10(1):25-34.
Garrison DR (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In: P.
Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd ed.,). IGI
Global. pp. 352-360
Garrison DR, Anderson T (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A
framework for research and practice. London and New York,
Routledge Falmer.
Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.
Internet Higher Educ. 2(2-3):87-105.
Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive
presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Am. J.
Distance Educ. 15(1):7-23.
Garrison DR, Arbaugh JB (2007). Researching the community of inquiry
framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet Higher
Educ. 10(3):157-172.
Garrison DR, Archer W (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching
and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Fung T (2004). Student role
adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument
validation. J. Asynchronous Learn. Networks 8(2):61-74.
Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Fung TS (2010). Exploring causal
relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student
perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet Higher
Educ. 13(1-2):31-36.
Garrison DR, Vaughn ND (2007). Blended learning in higher education.
Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Josey-
Bass.
Gunawardena CN, Zittle FJ (1997). Social presence as a predictor of
satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment.
Am. J. Distance Educ. 11(3):8-26.
Horzum MB (2015). Online learning students‟ perceptions of the
community of inquiry based on learning outcomes and demographic
variables. Croatian J. Educ. 17(2):535-567.
Horzum MB, Uyanık GK (2015). An item response theory analysis of the
community of inquiry scale. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning 16(2).
Ice P, Curtis R, Phillips P, Wells J (2007). Using asynchronous audio
feedback to enhance teaching presence and students‟ sense of
community. J. Asynchronous Learn. Networks 11(2):3-25.
Jackson LC, Jackson AC, Chambers D (2013). Establishing an online
community of inquiry at the distance education centre, Victoria.
Distance Educ. 34(3):353-367.
Kang M, Choi H, Park S (2007). Construction and validation of a social
presence scale for measuring online learners‟ involvement. In World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications, (1):1829-1833.
Kim J, Kwon Y, Cho D (2011). Investigating factors that influence social
presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education.
Computers Educ. 57(2):1512-1520.
Kozan K, Richardson JC (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry survey. Internet
Higher Educ. 23:39-47.
Küçük Ş (2012). Araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme topluluğu modeli ile
öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme ortamı olarak Facebook kullanımı.
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan
Üniversitesi, Konya.
Lowenthal PR, Dunlap JC (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person
in your students‟ lives: Establishing social presence using digital
storytelling. Internet Higher Educ. 13(1):70-72.
Lu Y, Huang W, Ma H, Luce T (2007). Interaction and social presence
in technology-mediated learning: A partial least squares model. In
Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2007.
WiCom 2007. International Conference on IEEE pp. 4411-4414.
Morgan T (2011). Online classroom or community-in-the-making?
Instructor conceptualizations and teaching presence in international
online contexts. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de
l‟Éducation à Distance 25(1).
Noteboom JT, Claywell L (2010). Student perceptions of cognitive,
social, and teaching presence. In 26th Annual Conference on
Distance Teaching and Learning, USA.
Öztürk E (2012). Araştırma topluluğu ölçeğinin Türkçe‟ye uyarlanması:
Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online 11(2):408-422.
Richardson JC, Swan K (2003). Examining social presence in online
courses in relation to students‟ perceived learning and satisfaction. J.
Asynchronous Learn. Networks 7(1):68-88.
Rourke L, Anderson T, Garrison DR, Archer W (2001). Assessing social
presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. J.
Distance Education/Revue de l‟Éducation à Distance 14(2):50-71.
Shea P, Bidjerano T (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical
framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence”
in online education. Comput. Educ. 52(3):543-553.
Shea P, Bidjerano T (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of
self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities
of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Comput.
Educ. 55(4):1721-1731.
Shea P, Hayes S, Vickers J (2010). Online instructional effort measured
through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry
framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. Int. Rev.
Res. Open Distance Learn. 11(3):127-154.
Shea PJ, Fredericksen EE, Pickett AM, Pelz WE (2003). A preliminary
investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network.
Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction 4:279-
312.
Shea PJ, Pickett AM, Pelz WE (2003). A follow-up investigation of
“teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. J. Asynchronous
Learn. Networks 7(2):61-80.
Shea P, Li CS, Pickett A (2006). A study of teaching presence and
student sense of learning community in fully online and web-
enhanced college courses. Internet Higher Educ. 9(3):175-190.
Shea P, Li CS, Swan K, Pickett A (2005). Developing learning
community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of
teaching presence. J. Asynchronous Learn. Networks 9(4):59-82.
Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Swan KP, Richardson JC, Ice P, Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M,
Arbaugh JB (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in
online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor 2(24):1-12.
Swan K, Shih LF (2005). On the nature and development of social
presence in online course discussions. J. Asynchronous Learn.
Networks 9(3):115-136.
Tu CH (2001). How chinese perceive social presence: An examination
of interaction in online learning environment. Educ. Media Int.
38(1):45-60.
Tu CH (2002). The relationship between social presence and online
privacy. Internet Higher Educ. 5(4):293-318.
Tu CH, McIsaac M (2002). The relationship of social presence and
interaction in online classes. Am. J. Distance Educ. 16(3):131-150.
Yu T, Richardson JC (2015). Examining reliability and validity of a
Korean version of the community of inquiry instrument using
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internet Higher Educ.
25:45-52.