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.
Journal:
Campus Virtuales

ISSN: 2255-1514

Year of publication: 2023

Volume: 12

Issue: 2

Pages: 69-84

Type: Article

More publications in: Campus Virtuales

Metrics

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

(Indicator corresponding to the last year available on this portal, year 2022)
  • Year 2022
  • Journal Impact: 1.730
  • Field: EDUCACIÓN Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 14/232

CIRC

  • Social Sciences: A

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

(Indicator corresponding to the last year available on this portal, year 2022)
  • Year 2022
  • Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 2.12
  • Best Quartile: Q1
  • Area: EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Quartile: Q1 Rank in area: 38/759

Abstract

Community of Inquiry is a theoretical framework with great influence in the investigation of online learning in Higher Education. This study examines the reliability and validity of a neutral Spanish version of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Survey (v14) for online learning. The sample is composed of Spanish and Latin-American online university students. The results revealed a high reliability for the instrument (Conbrach’s α = .978) and the different presences (Conbrach’s α = .956 and higher). Three factor-structures of the CoI framework explained 71% of the variance in the pattern of relationships among the items using the first split-half sample. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrates a good fit to the data from the sample to the sub-scales «Teaching presence» and «Cognitive presence» but an adequate fit was not found for the sub-scale Social presence. It is suggested that some of the items of the instrument be revised to improve its construct validity.

Bibliographic References

  • 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.