Serving as a prominent framework for online learning, the Community of Inquiry (CoI), identifies three factors critical to learning in online environments: teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence. However, application of the CoI framework to face-to-face classes has not been broadly or systematically explored, despite constructivist paradigms (e.g. flipped classrooms, team-based learning) being increasingly incorporated at the post-secondary level. Further, there remains some debate on whether such constructivist environments adequately support learning, with studies on their effectiveness revealing mixed results, as have studies comparing face-to-face and online learning contexts. A tool that measures students’ perceptions of constructivist learning environments could help address such inconsistencies. The purpose of this study was to validate the CoI scale, a measure developed for online contexts, for use in face-to-face contexts. Undergraduates (n = 282) enrolled in face-to-face classes incorporating team-based learning completed the 34-item CoI scale. Confirmatory Factor Analysis validated the original three-factor structure for face-to-face classes has acceptable fit, suggesting this tool measures teaching, cognitive, and social presences in face-to-face courses. Further suggestions for how this measure might be used for the purposes of research and instructional feedback are included.
AinsworthJ. (2021). Team-based learning in professional writing courses for accounting graduates: Positive impacts on student engagement, accountability and satisfaction. Accounting Education, 30(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1906720
2.
AkyolZ.GarrisonD. 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: Journal of the Council for Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
3.
Al-HuneidiA. M.SchreursJ. (2012). Constructivism based blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 7(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v7i1.1792
4.
Alvarez-BellR.WirtzD.BianH. (2017). Identifying keys to success in innovative teaching: Student engagement and instructional practices as predictors of student learning in a course using a team-based learning approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal, 5(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.10
5.
AndersonT.RourkeL.GarrisonR.ArcherW. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 5.
6.
AragonS. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.119
7.
ArbaughJ. B.Cleveland-InnesM.DiazS. R.GarrisonD. R.IceP.RichardsonJ. C.SwanK. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
8.
BaetenM.KyndtE.StruyvenK.DochyF. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001
BedggoodR. E.DonovanJ. D. (2012). University performance evaluations: What are we really measuring?Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.549221
11.
BertsimasD.NohadaniO. (2019). Robust maximum likelihood estimation. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 31(3), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2018.0834
12.
BoehmerD. M.WoodW. C. (2017). Student vs. faculty perspectives on quality instruction: Gender bias, “hotness,” and “easiness” in evaluating teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 92(4), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1313189
13.
BowersJ.KumarP. (2015). Students’ perceptions of teaching and social presence. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103
14.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
15.
CarvalhoC.SantosN. N.AntónioR.MartinsD. S. M. (2021). Supporting students’ engagement with teachers’ feedback: The role of students’ school identification. Educational Psychologist, 41(7), 863–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1849564
16.
ChoyJ. L. F.QuekC. L. (2016). Modelling relationships between students’ academic achievement and community of inquiry in an online learning environment for a blended course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4): 106-124. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2500
DeweyJ. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In DworkinM. S. (Ed.), Dewey on education: Selections, no. 3. New york: Teachers College Press, pp. 19-32.
19.
DoS. L.SchallertD. L. (2004). Emotions and classroom talk: Toward a model of the role of affect in students’ experiences of classroom discussions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.619
20.
DuckworthA. L.YeagerD. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327
21.
FanY.ShepherdL. J.SlavichE.WatersD.StoneM.AbelR.JohnstonE. L. (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. Plos One, 14(2), e0209749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749
22.
FerreiraM. M.TrudelA. R. (2012). The impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on student attitudes toward science, problem-solving skills, and sense of community in the classroom. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 47, 23–30.
23.
FongC. J.SchallertD. L.WilliamsK. M.WilliamsonZ. H.WarnerJ. R.LinS.KimY. W. (2018). When feedback signals failure but offers hope for improvement: A process model of constructive criticism. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.014
24.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
25.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2000). 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
26.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
27.
GarrisonD. R.ArbaughJ. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
28.
GarrisonD. R.Cleveland-InnesM.FungT. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
29.
GarrisonD. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21 first century: A Community of Inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
30.
GurungR. A. R.VespiaK. (2007). Looking good, teaching well? Linking, liking, looks, and learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280709336641
31.
HanJ.JiangY.MentzerN.KelleyT. (2022). The role of sense of community and motivation in the collaborative learning: An examination of the first-year design course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(3), 1837–1852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09658-6
32.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
33.
HolmesA. G. D. (2019). Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes. Has constructivism been fully embraced? Is there clear evidence that constructivist principles have been applied to all aspects of contemporary university undergraduate study?Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i1.819
34.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Sage Publications, Inc.
35.
JerrimJ.OliverM.SimsS. (2019). The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction, 61, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.004
36.
JonassenD. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In ReigeluthC. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215–239). Pennsylvania State University.
37.
KempN.GrieveR. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates’ opinions and test performance in classroom vs. Online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
38.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
39.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
40.
LamP. L. C.NgH. K. Y.TseA. H. H.LuM.WongB. Y. W. (2021). ELearning technology and the advancement of practical constructivist pedagogies: Illustrations from classroom observations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10245-w
41.
LeeK.TsaiP.-S.ChaiC. S.KohJ. H. L. (2014). Students’ perceptions of self-directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology: Perception of learning with technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12055
42.
LeeS. J.HuangK. (2018). Online interactions and social presence in online learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29, 113–128.
43.
LiawS.GohK. (2003). Evidence and control of biases in student evaluations of teaching. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540310456383
44.
LiC.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavioral Research, 48, 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
McDuffE. (2012). Collaborative learning in an undergraduate theory course: An assessment of goals and outcomes. Teaching Sociology, 40(2), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x12437968
47.
McLeanS.AttardiS. M. (2023). Sage or guide? Student perceptions of the role of the instructor in a flipped classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418793725
48.
MicariM.PazosP. (2021). Beyond grades: Improving college students’ social-cognitive outcomes in STEM through a collaborative learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 24(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09325-y
49.
MichaelsenL. K.SweetM.ParmeleeD. X. (2008). Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step: New directions for teaching and learning (J-B TL single issue teaching and learning) (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
50.
MillerM. G.Hahs-VaughnD. L.Zygouris-CoeV. (2014). A confirmatory factor analysis of teaching presence within online professional development. Online Learning, 18(1): 1-29. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i1.333
51.
MinoskyS. A.WiechersM.Landaverde-UmanaL. (2022). The impact of course format on student perceptions of the classroom learning environment and teamwork. Active Learning in Higher Education. 146978742211280. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221128023
52.
MolnarA. L.KearneyR. C. (2017). A comparison of cognitive presence in asynchronous and synchronous discussions in an online dental hygiene course. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 91(3), 14–21.
53.
O’ConnorK. (2022). Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: Tensions and challenges for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750585
54.
Rockinson-SzapkiwA.WendtJ.WhightingM.NisbetD. (2016). The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 18–35.
55.
RoweE. W.DandridgeJ.PawlushA.ThompsonD. F.FerrierD. E. (2014). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the WISC-IV with gifted students. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000009
56.
SheaP.BidjeranoT. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
57.
SheaP.BidjeranoT. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online environments: An empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.584320
58.
SmithB. P. (2007). Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: An analysis of end-of-course faculty evaluations. College Student Journal, 41(4), 788–800.
59.
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 (pp. 43–57). IGI Global.
60.
TanF. D. H.WhippP. R.GagnéM.Van QuaquebekeN. (2019). Students’ perception of teachers’ two-way feedback interactions that impact learning. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9473-7
61.
TenenbaumG.NaiduS.JegedeO.AustinJ. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(00)00017-7
TurkM.HeddyB. C.DanielsonR. W. (2022). Teaching and social presences supporting basic needs satisfaction in online learning environments: How can presences and basic needs happily meet online?Computers & Education, 180, 104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104432
64.
VoglerJ. S.MunsellS. E.KnutsonD. (2019). LOLsquared: When laughing-out-loud and learning-on-line intermingle in a computer-mediated classroom discussion. Computers & Education, 140, 103597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103597
65.
VoglerJ. S.SchallertD. L.JordanM. E.SongK.SandersA. J. Z.Te ChiangY. H. Y.LeeJ. E.ParkJ. H.YuL. T. (2017). Life history of a topic in an online discussion: A complex systems theory perspective on how one message attracts class members to create meaning collaboratively. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9255-9
66.
VoglerJ. S.ThompsonP.DavisD. W.MayfieldB. E.FinleyP. M.YasseriD. (2018). The hard work of soft skills: Augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), 457–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9438-9
67.
WarnerA. G. (2016). Developing a community of inquiry in a face-to-face class: How an online learning framework can enrich traditional classroom practice. Journal of Management Education, 40(4), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916629515
68.
WilliamsB.ReddyP. (2016). Does peer-assisted learning improve academic performance? A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 42, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.03.024
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.
