There are few studies devoted to analyze the relationships between the structure of the social network and performance in the online learning process as group. In this study, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model is used as an analytical framework, along with quantitative content analysis and social network analysis, in order to identify the effect of density, centralization, and centrality—of the coordinators—in the different categories of CoI model in self-regulated groups, according to the type of task. Over a period of 3 academic years, a total of 96 discussion forums and 7,155 units of analysis were analyzed, focusing on two types of tasks. The results showed that the effects of the density, centralization, and centrality of the coordinators on the categories of social and cognitive presence were moderated by the type of task. The findings contribute to identify the adequate structure of the social network for the CoI model categories and the learning tasks.
Agudo-PeregrinaÁ. F.Iglesias-PradasS.Conde-GonzálezM. Á.Hernández-GarcíaÁ. (2014) Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in Human Behavior31: 542–550. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.031.
2.
Ab JalilH.de LaatM. (2014) Discovering the pattern of interactions in online discussions using the social network analysis principle. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education16(2): 83–108.
3.
ArbaughJ. B.HwangA. (2006) Does ‘teaching presence’ exist in online MBA courses?The Internet and Higher Education9(1): 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.12.001.
4.
AkyolZ.GarrisonD. R. (2011) Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education14(3): 183–190. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc. 2011.01.005.
5.
Berkowitz, S. D. (2013). An introduction to structural analysis: The network approach to social research. Toronto, Canada: Butterworths.
6.
ByrneB. M.van de VijverF. J. R. (2010) Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing10(2): 107–132. doi:10.1080/15305051003637306.
Ceri-BoomsM.CurşeuP. L.OerlemansL. A. (2017) Task and person-focused leadership behaviors and group performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review27(1): 178–192. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.010.
9.
ChoH.GeriG.DavidsonB.IngraffeaA. (2007) Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education49(2): 309–329. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.07.003.
10.
CohenM. A.RogelbergS. G.AllenJ. A.LuongA. (2011) Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice15(1): 90–104. doi:10.1037/a0021549.
11.
DadoM.BodemerD. (2017) A review of methodological applications of social network analysis in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Research Review22: 159–180. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.005.
12.
DawsonS.BakhariaA.HeathcoteE. (2010) SNAPP: Realizing the affordances of real-time SNA within networked learning environments. In: Dirckinck-HolmfeldL.HodgsonV.JonesC.de LaatM.McConnellD.RybergT. (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning, Lancaster, England: Lancaster University, pp. 125–133.
13.
de LengB. A.DolmansD. H.JöbsisR.MuijtjensA. M.van der VleutenC. P. (2009) Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking on basic science concepts during work placements. Computers & Education53(1): 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.012.
14.
de WeverB.SchellensT.ValckeM.Van KeerH. (2006) Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education46: 6–28. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005.
15.
DonaldsonL. (2001) The contingency theory of organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
EvansC. R.DionK. L. (2012) Group cohesion and performance a meta-analysis. Small Group Research43(6): 690–701. doi:10.1177/1046496412468074.
17.
EngelA.OnrubiaJ. (2010) Patrones de organización grupal y fases de construcción del conocimiento en entornos virtuales de aprendizaje colaborativo [Patterns of small group organisation and phases of collaborative knowledge construction in CSCL environments]. Infancia y Aprendizaje33: 515–528. doi:10.1174/021037010793139608.
18.
GaggioliA.MazzoniE.MilaniL.RivaG. (2015) The creative link: Investigating the relationship between social network indices, creative performance and flow in blended groups. Computers in Human Behavior42: 157–166. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.003.
19.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E–Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
20.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E‐learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed). London, England: Routledge.
21.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education2: 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
22.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education15(1): 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071.
23.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2010) The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher education13: 5–9. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.
24.
GarrisonD. R.ArcherW. (2003) A community of inquiry framework for online learning. In: MooreM. (ed) Handbook of distance education, New York, NY: Erlbaum.
25.
GarrisonD. R.Cleveland-InnesM.FungT. S. (2004) Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks8(2): 61–74.
26.
GarrisonD. R.Cleveland-InnesM.KooleM.KappelmanJ. (2006) Revisiting methodological issues in the analysis of transcripts: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education9(1): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001.
27.
GarrisonD. R.VaughanN. D. (2011) Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
GunawardenaC.LoweC.AndersonT. (1997) Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research17(4): 379–431. doi:10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG.
29.
Gutiérrez-SantiusteE.Gallego-ArrufatM. J. (2014) Internal structure of virtual communications in communities of inquiry in higher education: Phases, evolution and participants‘ satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Technology46(6): 1295–1311. doi:10.1111/bjet.12218.
30.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures1(1): 77–89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664.
31.
HenrieC. R.HalversonL. R.GrahamC. R. (2015) Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education90: 36–53. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005.
32.
HuangS.CummingsJ. N. (2011) When critical knowledge is most critical centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Groups Research42(6): 669–699. doi:10.1177/1046496411410073.
33.
Jan, S. K., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2018). Social network analysis: A framework for identifying communities in higher education online learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10758‐018‐9375‐y.
34.
JoI.ParkY.LeeH. (2017) Three interaction patterns on asynchronous online discussion behaviours: A methodological comparison. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning33(2): 106–122. doi:10.1111/jcal.12168.
35.
KauffeldS.MeyersR. A. (2009) Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology18(3): 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209.
36.
LinZ.YangH.AryaB.HuangZ.LiD. (2005) Structural versus individual perspectives on the dynamics of group performance: Theoretical exploration and empirical investigation. Journal of Management31(3): 354–380. doi:10.1177/0149206304272150.
37.
MacfaydenL. P.DawsonS. (2010) Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Internet & Higher Education54: 588–599. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008.
38.
MayordomoR. M.OnrubiaJ. (2015) Work coordination and collaborative knowledge construction in a small group collaborative virtual task. The Internet and Higher Education25: 96–104. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.003.
39.
MohammedS.HarrisonD. A. (2013) The clocks that time us are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes122(2): 244–256. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.004.
40.
NahrgangJ. D.DeRueD. S.HollenbeckJ. R.SpitzmullerM.JundtD. K.IlgenD. R. (2013) Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes122(1): 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.008.
41.
OhE. G.HuangW. H. D.MehdiabadiA. H.JuB. (2018) Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: Comparison between peer-and instructor-redirection. Journal of Computing in Higher Education30: 489–509. doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9180-6.
42.
OuyangF.ChangY. H. (2018) The relationships between social participatory roles and cognitive engagement levels in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/bjet.12647.
43.
RichardsonJ. C.IceP. (2010) Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education13(1–2): 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009.
44.
RourkeL.AndersonT. (2002) Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education1: 1–21. doi:10.5334/2002-1.
45.
RourkeL.AndersonT.GarrisonD. R.ArcherW. (2007) Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education14(2): 50–71.
46.
SalmonG. (2004) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, London, England: Routledge.
47.
SalmonG. (2013) E-tivities: The key to active online learning, London, England: Routledge.
48.
SauerN. C.KauffeldS. (2016) The structure of interaction at meetings: A social network analysis. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O60: 33–49. doi:10.1026/0932-4089/a000201.
49.
ScottJ. (2000) Social network analysis: A handbook, London, England: SAGE.
50.
SheaP.BidjeranoT. (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. Computers & Education55(4): 1721–1731. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017.
51.
SheaP.HayesS.UzunerS.VickersJ.BidjeranoT.Gozza-CohenM.TsengC. (2013) Online learner self-regulation: Learning presence viewed through quantitative content and social network analysis. The International Review of Research in Distance Learning14(3): 427–461. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1466.
52.
SheaP.HayesS.VickersJ.Gozza-CohenM.UzunerS.MehtaR.RanganP. (2010) A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. Internet and Higher Education13(4): 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.002.
53.
SiemensG.GaševićD.HaythornthwaiteC.DawsonS.ShumS. B.FergusonR.BakerR. S. J. D. (2011) Open learning analytics: An integrated modularized platform (Doctoral dissertation, Open University Press).
54.
SparroweR.LidenR.WayneS.KraimerM. (2001) Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. The Academy of Management Journal44(2): 316–325.
55.
SwanK.GarrisonD. R.RichardsonJ. (2009) A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In: PayneC. R. (ed) Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks, Hershey, PA: IGI Global., pp. 43–57. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004.
ThormannJ.GableS.FidalgoP.BlakesleeG. (2013) Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning14(3): 294–318. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1306.
58.
Tirado-Morueta, R., Hernando-Gómez, Á., & Aguaded-Gómez, J. I. (2015). The effect of centralization and cohesion on the social construction of knowledge in discussion forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 293–316. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.745437.
59.
Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., Hernando-Gómez, Á., & Harris, V. W. (2016). Exploring social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry to perform higher cognitive tasks. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 122–131. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.004.
60.
Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., & Hernando-Gómez, Á. (2017). Patterns of Participation and Social Connections in Online Discussion Forums. Small Group Research, 48(6), 639–664. doi:10.1177/1046496417710726.
61.
TrosterC.MehraA.Van KnippenbergD. L. (2014) Structuring for team success: The interactive effects of network structure and cultural diversity on team potency and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes124(2): 245–255. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.04.003.
62.
Van der HaarS.Koeslag-KreunenM.EuweE.SegersM. (2017) Team leader structuring for group effectiveness and group learning in command-and-control groups. Small Group Research48(2): 215–248. doi:10.1177/1046496417689897.
63.
VenkataramaniV.ZhouL.WangM.LiaoH.ShiJ. (2016) Social networks and employee voice: The influence of group members' and group leaders' social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes132: 37–38. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.12.001.
64.
Wang, Y. & Li, X. (2007). Social network analysis of interaction in online learning communities. Paper presented at Seventh IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, Niigata, Japan. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2007.228.
65.
WangL.HanJ.FisherC. M.PanY. (2017) Learning to share: Exploring temporality in shared leadership and group learning. Small Group Research48(2): 165–189. doi:10.1177/1046496417690027.
66.
WicksD. A.CraftB. B.MasonG. N.GritterK.BoldingK. (2015) An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a Faculty Learning Community. The Internet and Higher Education25: 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.001.
67.
WiseS. (2014) Can a team have too much cohesion? The dark side to network density. European Management Journal32(5): 703–711. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.005.
68.
YangH. L.TangJ. H. (2004) Team structure and team performance in IS development: A social network perspective. Information & Management41: 335–349.
69.
Yoon, J., & Lawler, E. J. (2006). Relational cohesion model of organizational commitment [Electronic version]. In O. Kyriakidou & M. F. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational perspectives in organizational studies (pp. 138–162). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
