Examining reliability and validity of the Community of Inquiry survey (CoI)

  1. Jesús Valverde-Berrocoso 1
  2. María R. Fernández-Sánchez 1
  3. Fátima Llamas Salguero 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Extremadura, Spain.
Revista:
Campus Virtuales

ISSN: 2255-1514

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 12

Número: 2

Páginas: 69-84

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Campus Virtuales

Resumen

La Comunidad de Indagación es un marco teórico con gran influencia en la investigación del aprendizaje en línea en Educación Superior. Este estudio examina la fiabilidad y validez de una versión en español de la Encuesta de Comunidad de Indagación (v14). La muestra está compuesta por estudiantes universitarios online españoles y latinoamericanos. Los resultados revelan una alta fiabilidad del instrumento (α de Conbrach = .978) y de las diferentes presencias (α de Conbrach = .956 y superiores). Tres estructuras factoriales del cuestionario explicaron el 71% de la varianza en el patrón de relaciones entre los ítems. El análisis factorial confirmatorio (AFC) demuestra un buen ajuste de los datos de la muestra a las subescalas «Presencia docente» y «Presencia cognitiva», pero no se encontró un ajuste adecuado para la subescala Presencia social. Se sugiere revisar algunos de los ítems del instrumento para mejorar su validez de constructo.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aish, A.-M.; Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). A panel model for political efficacy and responsiveness: An application of LISREL 7 with weighted least squares. Quality and Quantity, 24(4), 405-426. doi:10.1007/BF00152013.
  • Alaulamie, L. A. (2014). Teaching Presence, Social Presence, and Cognitive Presence as Predictors of Students' Satisfaction in an Online Program at a Saudi University [Ohio University]. (https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:93127#abstract-files).
  • 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. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003.
  • Ballesteros Velázquez, B.; Gil-Jaurena, I.; Morentin Encina, J. (2019). Validación de la versión en castellano del cuestionario ‘Community of Inquiry’. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 1(59). doi:10.6018/red/59/04.
  • Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 104-111. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.001.
  • Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQ6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Multivariate Software, Inc. (http://www.econ.upf.edu/~satorra/CourseSEMVienna2010/EQSManual.pdf).
  • Bishop, K.; Etmanski, C.; Page, M. B. (2019). Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All About Faculty!. In A. Altmann (Ed.), The disruptive power of online education: Challenges, opportunities, responses (First edition, pp. 83-98). Emerald Publishing.
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (Third edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • 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(2), 215-221. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.004.
  • Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002.
  • Christensen, C. M.; Horn, M. B. (2008). How Do We Transform Our Schools?. Education Next, 8(3), 13-19. (https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_20083_12.pdf)
  • DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2(3), 292-307. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292.
  • Díaz, 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. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.004.
  • Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed). SAGE Publications.
  • Garrison, D. R. (2017a). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (Third edition). Routledge.
  • Garrison, D. R. (2017b). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (Third edition). 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. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
  • Garrison, D. R.; Anderson, T.; Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.
  • 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, 103712. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712.
  • Herrero, J. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the study of the Structure and Stability of Assessment Instruments: An example with the Self-Steem Questionnaire (CA-14). Psychosocial Intervention, 19(3), 289-300. doi:10.5093/in2010v19n3a9.
  • Horzum, M. B.; Uyanik, G. K. (2015). An item response theory analysis of the Community of Inquiry Scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2052.
  • Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808-820. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013.
  • Kim, G.; Gurvitch, R. (2020). Online Education Research Adopting the Community of Inquiry Framework: A Systematic Review. Quest, 1-15. doi:10.1080/00336297.2020.1761843.
  • Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Fourth edition). The Guilford Press.
  • Kozan, K.; Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39-47. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.002.
  • Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The Evolution and Influence of Social Presence Theory on Online Learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching Practices (pp. 124-139). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-830-7.
  • 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. doi:10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.19.
  • Ma, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Kong, L.; Wu, Y.; Yang, H. (2017). Verifying Causal Relationships Among the Presences of the Community of Inquiry Framework in the Chinese Context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3197.
  • Moreira, J. A.; Ferreira, A. G.; Almeida, A. C. (2013). Comparing Communities of Inquiry of Portuguese Higher Education Students: One for All or One for Each?. Open Praxis, 5(2), 165-178. (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1077642).
  • Mulaik, S. A.; James, L. R.; Van Alstine, J.; Bennett, N.; Lind, S.; Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430.
  • Nagel, L.; Kotzé, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 45-51. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.001.
  • 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://eric.ed.gov/?q=Community+of+inquiry+survey+validity&id=EJ1179655).
  • Shea, P.; Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543-553. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007.
  • Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 22-32. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.001.
  • Swan, K. P., Richardson, J. C.; Ice, P.; Garrison, D. R.; Cleveland-Innes, M.; Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a Measurement Tool of Presence in Online Communities of Inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1-12. (http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/24/543.pdf).
  • Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
  • West, S. G.; Finch, J. F.; Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non- normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Sage Publications.
  • 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. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45-52. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.004.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet