Vol. 34 No. 1 (2019)
Research Articles

Benefits and Challenges of Technology-Enabled Learning using the Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework

PDF HTML ePub
  • Martha Cleveland-Innes,
  • Sarah Gauvreau,
  • Gloria Richardson,
  • Sanjaya Mishra,
  • Nathaniel Ostashewski
Martha Cleveland-Innes
Athabasca University
Bio
Sarah Gauvreau
Contact North | Contact Nord
Bio
Gloria Richardson
Northern College & Confederation College
Bio
Sanjaya Mishra
Commonwealth of Learning
Bio
Nathaniel Ostashewski
Athabasca University
Bio

Published 2019-08-30

Keywords

  • MOOCs,
  • Community of Inquiry (CoI),
  • Technology Enabled Learning

How to Cite

Cleveland-Innes, M., Gauvreau, S., Richardson, G., Mishra, S., & Ostashewski, N. (2019). Benefits and Challenges of Technology-Enabled Learning using the Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 34(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1108
Copyright Notice

Abstract

The Introduction to Technology-Enabled Learning (TEL) MOOC was intended to engage teachers worldwide who work in any level of education and are interested in technology-enabled learning and open educational resources. This paper investigates the response by participants to the content presented in week one on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model, in particular, the benefits and challenges of using the CoI framework with in the classroom, whether it is online, blended or face-to-face.

Titre: Bénéfices et défis des technologies pour l’apprentissage selon le cadre théorique de la communauté d’apprentissage

L’introduction du MOOC sur les technologies pour l’apprentissage visait à engager des enseignants du monde entier qui, quel que soit le niveau auquel ils enseignent, s’intéressent aux technologies pour l’apprentissage et aux ressources éducatives libres. Cet article traite de la réponse donnée par les participants au contenu présenté dans la semaine une, sur le modèle de la communauté d’apprentissage, en particulier les bénéfices et défis accompagnant l’usage du cadre de la communauté d’apprentissage dans la salle de classe, que cela soit en ligne, hybride ou face-à-face.

Mots-clés: CLOMs, Communauté d’apprentissage, Technologies pour l’apprentissage

PDF HTML ePub

References

  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572777.pdf
  2. Anderson, T. (2016, January). A fourth presence for the Community of Inquiry model? Retrieved from http://virtualcanuck.ca/2016/01/04/a-fourth-presence-for-the-community-of-inquiry-model/
  3. 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):133-136.
  4. Bates, T. (2018). The 2017 national survey of online learning in Canadian post-secondary education: methodology and results. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 29.
  5. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., & Tamim, R. M. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.
  6. Bichsel, J. (2013). The state of e-learning in higher education: An eye toward growth and increased access. Louisville, CO: Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2013/6/ers1304.pdf?la=en
  7. Bolinger, D., & Inan, F. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 41-65.
  8. Cleveland-Innes, M., Ostashewski, N., & Wilton, D. (2017) iMOOCs and learning to learn online. Community of Inquiry Blog Post. Retrieved from: http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/project5
  9. Cleveland-Innes, M., Briton, D., Gismondi, M., & Ives, C. (2015). MOOC instructional design principles: Ensuring quality across scale and diversity. Poster presentation at the International Conference on MOOCs in Scandinavia in Stockholm, Sweden, June, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ltlo.ca/MOOCPrinciples.pdf
  10. Cleveland-Innes, M., Wilton, D., Ostashewski, N., & Parker, N. (2016). Learning to learn online: A MOOC with a difference. The Online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2016, EADTU, Rome, Italy.
  11. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
  12. Fisher, R. (2009). Should we be allowing technology to remove the “distance” from “distance education”? New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 18, 31-46.
  13. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  14. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36.
  15. Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1954/3099
  16. Hénard, F. (2010). Learning our lesson: Review of quality teaching in higher education. Paris: OECD Higher Education Programme. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/44058352.pdf
  17. Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and Practices. An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions, 7-11.
  18. Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2011/
  19. Koh, M. H., & Hill, J. R. (2009), Student perceptions of group work in an online course: Benefits and challenges. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 69-92
  20. Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, J. L. (2013), Community of Inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1-16.
  21. Olpak, Y. Z., Yagci, M., & Basarmak, U. (2016). Determination of perception of community of inquiry. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(12), 1085-1092.
  22. Pond, W.K. (2002). Distributed education in the 21st century: Implications for quality assurance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(2). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer52/pond52.pdf
  23. Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
  24. Richardson, J., Swan, K., Lowenthal, P., & Ice, P. (2016, April). Social presence in online learning: Past, present, and future. In Global Learn (pp. 477-483). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  25. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (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). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2203
  26. Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, (39), pp. 22-34.
  27. Stodel, E., Thompson, T., & MacDonald, C. (2006). Learners' perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the Community of Inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 7(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/325
  28. Tapscott. D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.
  30. Wenger, E. (2004). Learning for a small planet: A research agenda. Retrieved from http://www.learninghistories.net/documents/learning%20for%20a%20small%20planet.pd
  31. Xin, C. (2012). A critique of the community of inquiry framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 26(1). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/755