Instrument to analyse communication in a Community of Inquiry when using emerging methodologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2022.19004Palabras clave:
Community of inquiry model, flipped classroom, mobile learning, blended learning, validity, reliabilityResumen
There is a growing interest in learning in Higher Education using flipped classroom and m-learning. This study constructs an original instrument to obtain information on the levels perceived by the students of the three presences of the Community of Inquiry model with these emerging methodologies. The instrument consists of 21 items, based on the instrument developed by Arbaugh et al. (2008), which were adapted to flipped classroom and m-learning. This instrument was distributed to 121 students from two different universities. Cochran's Q test was run to verify whether there was agreement between the opinions of five experts. Student t-test results for independent samples indicate similarity in the opinions of the two groups of students. Information analysis techniques, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability tests were also used to validate it. The analysis revealed three factors coinciding with cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence as proposed by the theoretical model. Cronbach's Alpha confirmed the reliability of the tool as a whole and its several dimensions. The results indicate that it is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the levels perceived by the students of the three presences of the Community of Inquiry model when using flipped classroom and m-learning.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Citas
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005
Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033
Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). Horizon report 2019 higher education edition. EDU19. EDUCAUSE. https://tinyurl.com/wyjnnbvn
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1.1.95.9117
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(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Ballesteros, B., Gil-Jaurena, I., & Morentin, J. (2019). Validation of the Spanish version of the “Community of Inquiry” survey. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 59(4), 1–26.
Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.001
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Carlon, S., Bennett-Woods, D., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, K., Marcisz, N., Mulhall, M., Noteboom, T., Snedden, T., Whalen, K., & Zenoni, L. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and results in online health care disciplines. Computers & Education, 59, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.004
Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002
Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends, 64(4), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
Chen, R. H. (2022). Effects of deliberate practice on blended learning sustainability: A community of inquiry perspective. Sustainability, 14(3), 1785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031785
Cochran, W. G. (1950). The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika, 37(3/4), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332378
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Diaz, S. R., 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 and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.004
Elosua, P., & Zumbo, B. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema, 20(5), 896–901. https://bit.ly/3IZFHw3
Espinoza, S. C., & Novoa-Muñoz, F. (2018). Ventajas del alfa ordinal respecto al alfa de Cronbach ilustradas con la encuesta AUDIT-OMS. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica, 42(e65), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.65
Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles Del Psicologo, 31(1), 18–33. https://bit.ly/372PZyq
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd editio). SAGE Publications.
Floy, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instrument. Psychological Assesment, 7(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
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
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. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
González Alonso, J., & Pazmiño Santacruz, M. (2015). Cálculo e interpretación del Alfa de Cronbach para el caso de validación de la consistencia interna de un cuestionario, con dos posibles escalas tipo Likert. Revista Publicando, 2(2), 62–67.
Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2015). Cognitive presence through social and teaching presence in communities of inquiry: A correlational – predictive study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1666
Heilporn, G., & Lakhal, S. (2020). Investigating the reliability and validity of the community of inquiry framework: An analysis of categories within each presence. Computers & Education, 145, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6th ed.). MrGraw-Hill.
Ireri, B. N., & Omwenga, E. I. (2016). Mobile learning: A bridging technology of learner entry behavior in a flipped classroom model. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of research on active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age (pp. 106–121). Idea Group,U.S.
Jou, M., Tennyson, R. D., Wang, J., & Huang, S. Y. (2016). A study on the usability of E-books and APP in engineering courses: A case study on mechanical drawing. Computers and Education, 92–93, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.004
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401–415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817
Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(2), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1979.11969385
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Hatala, M., & Adesope, O. (2015). Analytics of communities of inquiry: Effects of learning technology use on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.002
Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S., Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in Massive Open Online Courses. Computer & Education, 119, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010
Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.002
Lau, Y., Tang, Y. M., Chau, K. Y., Vyas, L., & Sandoval-hernandez, A. (2021). COVID-19 crisis: exploring community of inquiry in online learning for sub-degree students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 679197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679197
Lawrence-Benedict, H., Pfahl, M., & Smith, S. J. (2019). Community of Inquiry in online education: Using student evaluative data for assessment and strategic development. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 25, 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100208
Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: A practical guide revised and updated. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
López-Aguado, M., & Gutiérrez-Provecho, L. (2019). Cómo realizar e interpretar un análisis factorial exploratorio utilizando SPSS. REIRE Revista d’Innovació i Recerca En Educació, 12(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2019.12.227057
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2014). Problems measuring social presence in a community of inquiry. E–Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.19
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.4.1.84
Mills, J., Yates, K., Harrison, H., Woods, C., Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Trueman, S., & Hitchins, M. (2016). Using a community of inquiry framework to teach a nursing and midwifery research subject: an evaluative study. Nurse Education Today, 43, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.016
Morata-Ramirez, M. Á., Holgado Tello, F. P., Barbero-García, M. I., & Mendez, G. (2015). Análisis factorial confirmatorio. Recomendaciones sobre mínimos cuadrados no ponderados en función del error Tipo I de Ji-Cuadrado y RMSEA. Acción Psicológica, 12(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.12.1.14362
Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
Olpak, Y. Z., & Kiliç Çakmak, E. (2018). Examining the reliability and validity of a turkish version of the community of inquiry survey. Online Learning, 22(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.990
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual, a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Sen-Akbulut, M., Umutlu, D., Oner, D., & Arikan, S. (2022). Exploring university students’ learning experiences in the covid-19 semester through the community of inquiry framework. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 1–18. https://bit.ly/3IZqgoo
Sidiropoulou, Z., & Mavroidis, I. (2019). The relation between the three dimensions of the Community of Inquiry and the learning styles of students in a distance education programme. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(23), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i23.11564
Sun, Y., Franklin, T., & Gao, F. (2017). Learning outside of classroom: Exploring the active part of an informal online English learning community in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12340
Swan, K. P., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. Ben. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12. https://bit.ly/3JVdesE
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Wu, C. H. (2007). An empirical study on the transformation of Likert-scale data to numerical scores. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 1(58), 2851–2862. https://tinyurl.com/4zcm85wa
Yu, T., & Richardson, J. C. (2015). Examining reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Community of Inquiry instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.004
Zhang, R. (2020). Exploring blended learning experiences through the community of inquiry framework. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10125/44707
Zhang, Y. A. (2015). Handbook of mobile teaching and learning. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54146-9
Publicado
2022-05-23
Cómo citar
García Lira, K., & Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E. (2022). Instrument to analyse communication in a Community of Inquiry when using emerging methodologies. Revista Fuentes, 24(2), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2022.19004
Número
Sección
Investigaciones
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Keidy García Lira
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Revista Fuentes brinda acceso abierto inmediato a todo su contenido sobre el principio de que hacer que la investigación esté disponible de forma gratuita para el público para apoyar un mayor intercambio global del conocimiento.
De esta manera, el lector puede acceder a todos los contenidos de la revista desde el momento de la publicación sin coste ni obligación de suscripción.
Salvo indicación contraria, los artículos publicados en Revista Fuentes tienen licencia bajo el acuerdo de licencia internacional Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Los autores retienen los derechos de autor y se permite a terceros copiar, distribuir y hacer uso de los trabajos siempre que cumplan con los términos y condiciones establecidos por dicha licencia
- citar la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra).
- No se usen para fines comerciales.
- Si remezcla, transforma o crea a partir del material, deberá difundir sus contribuciones bajo la misma licencia que el original.
Puede encontrar más información al respecto en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es.
En el caso de trabajos publicados bajo una licencia diferente a la anteriormente mencionada (CC BY-NC-ND o CC BY-NC) los autores retienen los derechos de autor, permitiéndose su copia, distribución y uso de los trabajos siempre que cumplan con los términos y condiciones de la licencia correspondiente. Puede encontrar más información al respecto en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/?lang=es.
Recibido 2021-10-01
Aceptado 2022-04-04
Publicado 2022-05-23
Aceptado 2022-04-04
Publicado 2022-05-23
Visualizaciones
- Resumen 444
- PDF (English) (English) 286
- HTML (English) 156
- EPUB (English) 22
