1. Communities of Inquiry and
Assessment:
Graded Discussions
BASED ON PAPER TO BE PUBLISHED IN
HCT ELEARNING JOURNAL 2013
PAUL LESLIE
SHARJAH WOMEN’S COLLEGE
2013

2. Abstract
 As the use of digital /blended learning
increases, social media tools such as discussion
boards may become increasingly relevant.
 The community of inquiry model
(Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000) suggests that
three „presences‟ are required in any group
interaction.
 Discussion board analysis attempts to correlate
experience with the community of inquiry model
with the quality of discussion board interactions.
 Can the quality of the exchanges be improved
through familiarity with the model?

3. Theoretical Background
 70% of students report that they learn best in a blended
environments (Dahlstrom, 2012, p. 7).
 Social media provides students with a wider audience
 The public nature of online discussion boards encourages
everyone to push themselves further.
 Students find meaning for their ideas in the responses
they receive from others (Gergen K. , 2011, p. 366).
 Communities of inquiry are supported by the “desire for
students to express themselves socially and attract
attention to themselves” (Leslie &
Murphy, 2008, Implications).

4. Community of Inquiry
Interactive Diagram
(Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000)

5. Table 1: Operational Definitions of the Presences
(Akyol & Garrison, 2008)
Table 1
Operational Definitions of the Presences (Akyol & Garrison, 2008)
INDICATORS
ELEMENTS CATEGORIES
(examples only)
Open Communication Learning Climate/Risk-Free Expression
Group Cohesion Group Identity/Collaboration
Social Presence
Personal/Affective Self Projection/Expressing Emotions
Triggering Event Sense of Puzzlement
Exploration Information Exchange
Integration Connecting Ideas
Cognitive Presence
Resolution Applying New Ideas
Design & Organization Setting Curriculum & Methods
Facilitating Discourse Shaping Constructive Exchange
Teaching Presence Direct Instruction Focusing and Resolving Issues

6. Table 2: Data collection chart
Table 2: Data collection chart
Discussion boards in order of student familiarity
First year cohort First year cohort Third year cohort
Total Posts 256 257 180
Participants 28 26 17
Average responses per student 9.1 9.9 10.6
Social presence 241 321 170
Instances of
Presence
Cognitive presence 163 247 216
Teaching presence 26 80 141
Total instances of presence 430 648 527
Average instances of presence per post 1.7 2.5 2.9

7. Table 3: Instances of presence
Discussion boards in order of student familiarity
1 2 3
First year cohort First year cohort Third year cohort
Social presence
Instances 241 321 170
% 56 50 32
Cognitive presence
Instances 163 247 216
% 38 38 41
Teaching presence
Instances 26 80 141
% 6 12 27

8. Significant Finding
 Experience and exposure resulted in increased teaching presence.
 Cognitive presence increased slightly but content contained
prolonged exchanges
 “For example, when young students register in any social media like Facebook or
twitter they will not care what nickname to put or what personal information to
appear, as in adult students will think hundred times about their nickname and be
very discreet to show his real name or write their personal information including
their pictures . “
 She was then questioned extensively on the subject by her peers.
 In subsequent exchanges, she offered increased teaching
presence, thus including more students in this issue, and so
producing a more informed body of knowledge:
 “Amal do you prefere to put your real name and personal inforamtion in social
media? and why (sic)?”

9. References
 Resources and References
 Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. (2008, December). The development of a community of inquiry over
time in an online course: understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and
teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 3-22. Retrieved
January 6, 2013, from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hct.ac.ae/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=36559412
&site=ehost-live
 Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology.
Louisville: Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf
 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based
Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from
http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sites/communityofinquiry.com/files/Critical_Inquiry_mod
el.pdf
 Gergen, K. (2011). Relation Being: A Brief Introduction. Journal of Constructivist Psychology,
24(4), 280-282. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2011.593453
 Leslie, P., & Murphy, E. (2008, October). Post-Secondary Students‟ Purposes for Blogging. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved February 8,
2012, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/560/1099