Vol. 39 No. 2 (2024)
Research Articles

Collaborative Learning in a Large Enrollment Online Course: Application of the Community of Inquiry Framework

HTML PDF
Kershnee Sevnarayan
University of South Africa
Bio
Norman Vaughan
Mount Royal University
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2024.v39.i2.1341

Published 2024-12-21

How to Cite

Sevnarayan, K., & Vaughan , N. (2024). Collaborative Learning in a Large Enrollment Online Course: Application of the Community of Inquiry Framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2024.v39.i2.1341
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This study used the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to provide a collaborative experience for students from marginalised communities in a large enrollment module in South Africa. The CoI framework consists of three elements such as the social, cognitive, and teaching presences. This study focused on the teaching presence element along with the seven principles in the CoI framework which involves design and organisation, facilitation, and direct instruction.  The study context was one large English language application course which enrols over 1200 students who speak English as an additional language at an open distance e-learning university in South Africa. The research was a self-study approach and the course was designed over a few months to accommodate students and create collaboration amongst them. The findings revealed that the course structure engaged students, provided personal introductions and goal-setting opportunities, incorporated motivational content which increased student engagement and collaboration. Communication in the course was facilitated through familiar social media channels to provide alternative content modes which further supported student learning. Direct instruction which involved explicit assignment support and feedback was crucial to ensure that students achieved the learning outcomes.  The findings of this study highlight the significance of the CoI framework and its seven principles to create a collaborative and engaging learning context in large enrollment courses.

HTML PDF

References

  1. Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39–43. https://gajrc.com/media/articles/GAJHSS_23_39-43_VMGJbOK.pdf
  2. Baanqud, N. S., Al-Samarraie, H., Alzahrani, A. I., & Alfarraj, O. (2020). Engagement in web-supported collaborative learning and student knowledge construction: a modeling study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(56). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00232-z
  3. Boulton, C. A., Hughes, E., Kent, C., Smith, J. R., & Williams, H. T. P. (2019). Student engagement and wellbeing over time at a higher education institution. PLoS ONE, 14(11), e0225770. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225770
  4. Carloni, G. (2023). Chapter 4: Transformative course design practices to develop inclusive online world language teacher education environments from a critical digital pedagogy perspective. In U. G. Singh, C. S. Nair, & S. Goncalves (Eds.), Digital Teaching, Learning and Assessment (pp. 65–77). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95500-3.00007-9
  5. Chan, A. K., Nickson, C. P., Rudolph, J. W., Lee, A., & Joynt, G. M. (2020). Social media for rapid knowledge dissemination: early experience from the COVID-19 pandemic. Anaesthesia, 75(12), 1579–1582. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15057
  6. Chick, N. (2013). Metacognition. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/
  7. Department of Education. (2016, November). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf
  8. Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: a means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102238654
  9. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
  10. Edumadze, J. K. E., & Govender, D. W. (2024). The community of inquiry as a tool for measuring student engagement in blended massive open online courses (MOOCs): A case study of university students in a developing country. Smart Learning Environments, 11(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00306-9
  11. Fletcher, T., Nί Chrόinίn, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2016). Multiple layers of interactivity in self-study of practice research: an empirically-based exploration of methodological issues. In D. Garbett, & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry, (pp. 19–25). University of Auckland.
  12. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012, January). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 58–68. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/53728/
  13. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd Edition). Routledge: Taylor and Francis.
  14. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015, January). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for the communities of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001
  15. 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
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  17. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
  18. Garrison. D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Vaughan, N. (2024). Community of Inquiry website. https://coi.athabascau.ca/
  19. Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54
  20. Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, P. (2004, January). The epistemological dimensions and dynamics of professional dialogue in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. Laboskey, & T. Russell. (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1109–1167). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_28
  21. Hamann, K., Glazier, R., Wilson, B., & Pollock, P. (2020, July 30). Online teaching, student success, and retention in political science courses. European Political Science. 20, 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-020-00282-x
  22. Hauge, K. (2021). Self-study research: Challenges and opportunities in teacher education. In M. J. Hernandez-Serrano (Ed.) Teacher education in the 21st century – emerging skills for a changing world (pp. 139–156). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96252
  23. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  24. Huang, X., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023). Social emotional interaction in collaborative learning: why it matters and how can we measure it? Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), 100447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100447
  25. Ige, B. O., Doyle, G., & Pienaar, L. (2023). Partnering with students to connect students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 37(4), 163–80. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-4-5074
  26. Joubert, J. (1842). Pensees. https://archive.org/details/pensesdcompl00joubuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
  27. Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state and future potential. Palgrave Communications, (3)1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0001-8#citeas
  28. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_21
  29. Lei, M., & Medwell, J. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on student teachers: how the shift to online collaborative learning affects student teachers’ learning and future teaching in a Chinese context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09686-w
  30. Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: education is everyone’s business. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  31. Lyons, N., & LaBoskey, V. K. (2002). Why narrative inquiry or exemplars for a scholarship of teaching? In N. Lyons, & V. K. LaBoskey (Eds.), Narrative inquiry in practice: advancing the knowledge of teaching (pp. 11–27). Teachers College Press.
  32. Michalski, J. H., Cunningham, T., & Henry, J. (2017). The diversity challenge for higher education in Canada: the prospects and challenges of increased access and student access. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39(39), 66–89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90007872
  33. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://eddl.tru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/EDDL5101_W9_Moore_1989.pdf
  34. Muzari, T., Shava, G. N., & Shonhiwa, S. (2022). Qualitative research paradigm, a key research design for educational researchers, processes and procedures: a theoretical overview. Indiana Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 14–20. https://indianapublications.com/articles/IJHSS_3(1)_14-20_61f38990115064.95135470.pdf
  35. Panitz, T. (1999, December). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: a comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED448443.pdf
  36. Patiño, A., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Buenestado-Fernández, M. (2023). Active learning and education 4.0 for complex thinking training: analysis of two case studies in open education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00229-x
  37. Pavlov, V., Smirnova, N. V., & Nuzhnaia, E. (2021). Beyond the avatar: using video cameras to achieve effective collaboration in an online second language classroom. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(7), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.7.14
  38. Pazzaglia, A. M., Clements, M., Lavigne, H. J., & Stafford, E. T. (2016). An analysis of student engagement patterns and online course outcomes in Wisconsin. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED566960.pdf
  39. Pervin, N., & Mokhtar, M. (2022). The interpretivist research paradigm: a subjective notion of a social context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), 419–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i2/12938
  40. Pratschke, B. M. (2023). Generativism: the new hybrid. Computers and Society, (cs.CY). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.12468
  41. Pratschke, B. M. (2024). Generative AI and education: digital pedagogies, teaching innovation, and learning design. Springer.
  42. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the literature. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
  43. Quality Matters. (2024). Changing landscape of online education (chloe) strategy shift: institutions respond to sustained online demand. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-9-report-2024
  44. Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2023). Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
  45. Rehman, M. A., Lashari, A. A., & Abbas, S. (2023). Analysis of sustainable academic performance through interactive learning environment in higher education. Global Economics Review, VIII(II), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.31703/ger.2023(VIII-II).10
  46. Resta, P., & Shonfeld, M. (2013). A study of trans-national learning teams in a virtual world. In R. McBride, & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society For Information Technology and teacher education international conference 2013 (pp. 2932–2940). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  47. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2009). Looking back and looking forward: a historical overview of the self-study school. In C. A. Lassonde, & S. Galman (Eds), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 3–19). Brill Publishers.
  48. Sevnarayan, K. (2023). The implementation of telegram as a pedagogical tool to enhance student motivation and interaction. Journal of Education Technology, 7(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v7i1.52488
  49. Telegram. (2024). Telegram messenger. https://telegram.org/
  50. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge. Penguin Books.
  51. Thanh, N. C., & Thanh, T. T. (2015). The interconnection between interpretivist paradigm and qualitative methods in education. American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 24–27.
  52. UNISA. (2024). National treasure with a global reach. https://www.unisa.ac.za/sites/corporate/default/About/The-leading-ODL-university
  53. Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Investigating how digital technologies can support a triad-approach for student assessment in higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2RG6X
  54. Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781927356470.01
  55. Vaughan, N. D., Dell, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2023). Principles of blended learning: shared metacognition and communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993920.01
  56. WhatsApp. (2024). WhatsApp. https://web.whatsapp.com/
  57. Xing, W., Zhu, G., Arslan, O., Shim, J., & Popov, V., (2023). Using learning analytics to explore the multifaceted engagement in collaborative learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09343-0
  58. Xu, B., Stephens, J. M., & Lee, K. (2024). Assessing student engagement in collaborative learning: development and validation of new measure in China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33, 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00737-x
  59. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 318–329). https://www.drghazi.net/media/drghazi/documentary8.pdf