July 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm #894
D. Randy GarrisonKey Master
I was very interested to see an accepted manuscript in the journal of The Internet & Higher Education and wanted to bring it to your attention. The article is:
Kozen, K., & Richardson J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet & Higher Education.
The reason for my excitement is that this research adds another level of credibility to Community of Inquiry (CoI) survey and framework. I have been asked about evidence for the CoI framework and there have been a number of exploratory factor analyses that have given credence to the CoI framework using the questionnaire based on the framework; however, the significance of this article is the statistical rigor and the reporting of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
With regard to the CFA, the study concludes that three factors fit the data and “… all items loaded very strongly on their corresponding presence factor” (p. 16). The authors also report that the CFA results align with the exploratory factor analysis results. Moreover, there is a detailed analysis and discussion of a couple of items that cross-loaded to some extent but did support their alignment as hypothesized.
The evidence of the CoI survey to reflect the factor structure of the CoI framework offers an important tool to study any number of issues associated with learning environments that have the goal of creating and sustaining purposeful learning communities. In particular, the authors draw attention to the design and development of forming communities of inquiry; that is, not just studying existing communities but using the CoI framework to create and sustain communities of inquiry. They also note the application of the CoI framework to “larger learning contexts than online discussions” (p. 22). This raises the issue of applying the CoI framework to face-to-face learning environments (not only online and blended contexts). The generic nature of the CoI framework has been noted in previous publications and would strongly support this application.
With this I invite your reactions to the implications of this research.
July 31, 2014 at 3:04 pm #914
Thanks Dr Garrison for taking attention to the results of this study,
I think one strong aspect of the article is trying to approach the survey analysis as objectively as possible. An example is the parallel analysis conducted on whether there would be 3 or 4 factors coming out of the survey. The results suggested that a 3-factor solution would fit our data better, which aligns fully with the assumptions of the CoI framework. It is also important to note here that the survey was most probably created with three presences in mind by forming items to measure each presence. The results of the study suggested that this attempt was quite successful. Still, some further theoretical thoughts would suggest revising items so that they can represent the presences more etc. Running factor analytic analyses on such item versions, and comparing them with the present and previous results would strengthen the survey as well. After all, I think the present results pointed to a strong theoretical basis on which the current CoI survey depends.
kadirYou must be logged in to reply to this topic.
March 17, 2016 at 6:27 am #1227
I am using Structural Equation Modeling and through the analysis to improve model fit and work with the sample, admittedly smaller than ideal (n=99), my modified model worked much better when I removed Cognitive presence from the model, yet the theoretical framework and survey used was based on CoI. Have you seen other papers that are of quality that are able to use some of the model, but not the entire thing?
To explain this limitation our sample size was a contributing factor and secondly this is a mastery type course of introductory computer skills where learners come in at a wide variety of previous experiences.
Georgia State UniversityYou must be logged in to reply to this topic.
March 17, 2016 at 5:51 pm #1228
Madelaine BefusKey Master
I’m posting on behalf of Dr. Garrison. His reply follows:
I have not come across this situation. My guess it is largely due to the approach that was taken in this course; specifically a mastery approach. The COI and particularly CP is all about collaborative approaches to learning. Not sure how the mastery approach is congruent with the premise of the COI.
DRGYou must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.