Open online courses are becoming more prevalent at local level and for and professional development objectives. Proper instructional design combined with use of online tools can promote learner interaction in online environments. Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, this study aimed at examining learners’ interaction and their perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in an open online course offered for professional development in three Swedish universities. The course was free and open to all, attracting participants from all over the world. In order to understand the online interactions of the course, three presences of CoI were matched to three types of interaction (Moore, 1989). Data were collected through a slightly revised version of the CoI instrument and open-ended questions were added. Survey results showed that participants had high perceptions of the three presences in the course. Results also yielded significant relationships between teaching presence and cognitive presence, as well as social presence and cognitive presence. The findings suggest that deploying a set of online tools combined with appropriate pedagogical approaches in designing open online courses could foster learner interaction especially learner-content interaction and cognitive presence.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2), 82-103. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
3. Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231-246. doi:
3. Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231-246. doi:10.1080/10494820902809147)| false
4. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149)| false
5. 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. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/ATHAB_CA/Anderson.pdf
6. 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
7. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
8. Clarà, M., Kelly, N., Mauri, T., & Danaher, P. A. (2015). Can massive communities of teachers facilitate collaborative reflection? Fractal design as a possible answer. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(1), 86-98. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1095280
9. Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical Models for E-Learning: A Theory-Based Design Framework. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25-44. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.4593&rep=rep1&type=pdf
10. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., de Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005). Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x
11. Eradze, M., & Laanpere, M. (2013). Analysing Learning Interactions in Digital Learning Ecosystems based on Learning Activity Streams. Paper presented at the European Conference of Educational Research, Istanbul, September 2013.
12. Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26.
13. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
14. 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
15. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
16. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
17. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. T. (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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
18. Hoven, D. (2006). Communicating and interacting: An exploration of the changing roles of media in CALL/CMC. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 233-256. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24156246
19. Kilgore, W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2015). The Human Element MOOC: An Experiment in Social Presence. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Establishing an equitable and fair admissions system for an online (pp. 389-407). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
20. Koseoglu, S., & Koutropoulos, A. (2016). Teaching Presence in MOOCs: Perspectives and Learning esign Strategies. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016, Lancaster.
21. Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, J. L. (2013). Community of inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/12.1.1.pdf
22. Liu, S., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165-182. Retrieved from http://online2.sdccd.edu/bblearntrain/2013_2014/Liu_Gomez_Yen_2009.pdf
23. Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, May 3-4, 2010, Aalborg, 266-274. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Mackness.html
24. Mckerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student Perceptions of Teaching Presence, Social Presence, and Cognitive Presence in a Virtual World. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324-336. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no3/mckerlich_0911.pdf
25. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
26. Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012
27. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 11(4.2), 1-18.
28. Saadatmand, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2014). Participants’ Perceptions of Learning and Networking in Connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 16-30.
29. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, selfregulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(1), 1721-1731.
30. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based Online Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.2.1.pdf
31. Siemens, G. (2010). Teaching in Social and Technological Networks.
32. Siemens, G. (2012, July 25). MOOCs are really a platform. [Blog post] ELEARNSPACE. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocsare- really-a-platform/
33. Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Roles of course facilitators, learners , and technology in the flow of information of a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Online and Distance Learning, 16(3).
34. Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The Importance of Interaction in Web-Based Education: A Program-level Case Study of Online MBA Courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 1-19. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/4.1.1.pdf
35. Swan, K. (2006). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(4), 306-331. http://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208
36. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004