Advanced

Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1-12.

Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 22-32.

The first study by Stefan Stenbom provided an exhaustive search and analysis of 103 peer reviewed journal articles that used the CoI framework and survey. Stenbom (2018) concluded that “the combined result of this study is that the CoI survey is a widely accepted instrument for revealing participants' perceptions of a learning experience [and] … it is clear that the CoI survey provide[d] a reliable and valid measure of cognitive, social, and teaching presence as outlined in the CoI framework” (p. 27). However, the caveat and challenge is that future success must involve more scholars and “expand the settings in order to make more general claims about the nature of online and blended learning” (p. 22). Therefore, notwithstanding “the CoI survey is a widely accepted instrument for revealing participants' perceptions of a learning experience” (p. 27), there is greater potential in expanding the use of the CoI survey (and framework) to a wide range of educational contexts; including, I might add, face-to-face environments.

The second study I wish to draw to your attention is by Secil Caskurlu who took the next step by examining the individual construct validity of the CoI presences. Based on a sample of twelve online graduate courses (310 participants), the confirmatory factor analysis “empirically supported the conceptualization of all three presences as initially proposed by the CoI framework … as well as the reliability and validity of the CoI instrument” (p. 9). The findings, however, raised issues identified previously in the literature with regard to the structure of teaching and social presence. For example, notwithstanding the confirmation of a three factor solution for teaching presence, there was a question as to the uniqueness of facilitation and direct instruction. Similarly, social presence demonstrated a clear hypothesized factor structure but the caveat was “that affective expression and group cohesion might not be unique factors” (p. 10). The helpful explanation was that this was likely due to cross loading of two items and therefore some refinement of these items may be justified. On the other hand, with regard to teaching presence, the outcome was clear. A four factor solution showing a distinction among the phases of practical inquiry was demonstrated. Personally this was encouraging in that historically resolution was not always apparent. Finally, while the general conclusion of this study revealed a data fit with the hypothesized factor structure of each of the presences, it was concluded that the structure be examined across institutions, disciplines and students. This recommendation is consistent with Stenbom in that we should focus on generalizing the application of the CoI framework.

For researchers using the CoI framework these studies are significant in that they provide powerful evidence in support of the validity of the conceptualization of the CoI framework and its corresponding survey questionnaire. These validation studies are an invaluable foundation and also guide in refining the framework and survey. In general they provide increased confidence using this framework to study collaborative approaches to deep and meaningful inquiry.