INOVATIVE: TO CREATE NEW MODULE FOR

EFFECTIVENESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

WORKFLOW BY USING FULLY SISTEMIZE
APPLICATION

ZAIDIE @ MOHD ZAIDIE BIN ADILAI

FACULTY OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH
2022
INOVATIVE: TO CREATE NEW MODULE FOR
EFFECTIVENESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
WORKFLOW BY USING FULLY SISTEMIZE
APPLICATION

ZAIDIE @ MOHD ZAIDIE BIN ADILAI

THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

FACULTY OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH
2022
 UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS

JUDUL : INOVATIVE: TO CREATE NEW MODULE FOR EFFECTIVENESS

IN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WORKFLOW BY USING FULLY
SISTEMIZE APPLICATION

IJAZAH : SARJANA SAINS

BIDANG : TEKNOLOGI MAKLUMAT

Saya ZAIDIE @ MOHD ZAIDIE BIN ADILAI, Sesi 2019-2022, mengaku

membenarkan tesis Sarjana ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Malaysia
Sabah dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:-
1. Tesis ini adalah hak milik Universiti Malaysia Sabah
2. Perpustakaan Universiti Malaysia Sabah dibenarkan membuat salinan
untuk tujuan pengajian sahaja.
3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan
pertukaran antara institusi pengajian tinggi.
4. Sila tandakan ( / ):

SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah

keselamatan atau kepentingan Malaysia seperti
yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA 1972)

TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah

ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana
penyelidikan dijalankan)

TIDAK TERHAD
/

Disahkan Oleh,

______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

ZAIDIE @ MOHD ZAIDIE BIN (Tandatangan Pustakawan)

ADILAI
MI1911016T

______________________________
Tarikh : 20 Januari 2022 (Dr. Nile Freeman)
Penyelia Utama
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the material in this thesis is my own except for
quotations, equations, summaries, and references, which have been duly
acknowledged.

12 December 2021
Zaidie @ Mohd Zaidie Bin Adilai
MI1911016T

ii
 CERTIFICATION

NAME : ZAIDIE @ MOHD ZAIDIE BIN ADILAI

MATRIC NO. : MI1911016T

TITTLE : INOVATIVE: TO CREATE NEW MODULE FOR

EFFECTIVENESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
WORKFLOW BY USING FULLY SISTEMIZE
APPLICATION

DEGREE : MASTER OF SCIENCE

FIELD : INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

VIVA DATE : 12 DECEMBER 2021

CERTIFIED BY;

Signature

1. MAIN SUPERVISOR
Dr. Nile Freeman
________________

2. CO-SUPERVISOR
Dr. Calvin Huge
________________

3. CO-SUPERVISOR
Mr. Saiful Lanrang
________________

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to

my supervisors Dr. Nile Freeman, Dr. Calvin Huge and Mr. Saiful Lanrang
for their invaluable guidance, patience, and encouragement until the end
of my academic journey.

I would like to thank the people and organisations that contributed

their precious time in providing valuable information regarding the
construction industry in Sarawak to assist in the completion of this
research. My gratitude also goes to all the respondents whowere willing
and sincerely responded to my questionnaire.

Finally, I would like to thank my respected mother for their love,

understanding, support, encouragement until the completion of my
academic journey.

Zaidie @ Mohd Zaidie Bin Adilai

12 December 2021

iv
 ABSTRACT

The acquisition of new vocabulary in a second language requires a

series of repeated exposures. With emerging digital platforms and
games such exposure can easily be provided. Due to the prevalence and
ease of access of mobile technology, learners have demonstrated a high
degree of dependence on digital tools such as smartphones for learning
as compared to traditional approaches. This study is aimed at exploring
whether a game-based thesaurus app could be used to improve the
level of English language vocabulary among students in a public
university in Malaysia. The findings reveal that students have less
experience on using thesaurus apps compared to games or other
language learning apps. Students prefer the use of mobile learning over
traditional approach, prefer online platforms rather than mobile apps,
and acquire or build up their vocabulary through watching movies and
listening to music. Even though most students have adequate
experience using mobile apps and games, they rarely use those
platforms for learning purposes. This suggests that it is crucial to
incorporate game elements into learning platforms particularly in
learning English vocabulary to generate motivation and engagement to
learners. Lecturers should therefore focus more on the explicit use of
mobile digital technology in their teaching and learning classrooms.

v
 ABSTRAK

INOVATIF: MEWUJUDKAN MODUL BARU DALAM MENINGKATKAN

KEBERKESANAN PROSES KERJA KAKITANGAN PENTADBIRAN
DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN SEPENUHNYA APLIKASI
BERSISTEMATIK

Pemerolehan perbendaharaan kata baharu dalam bahasa kedua

memerlukan satu siri pendedahan berulang kali. Melalui platform digital
dan permainan yang baru, pendedahan tersebut boleh disediakan
dengan mudah. Oleh kerana kelaziman dan akses teknologi mudah alih
adalah senang, pelajar telah menunjukkan tahap kebergantungan yang
tinggi terhadap alat digital untuk belajar, seperti melalui telefon pintar
berbanding dengan pendekatan tradisional. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk
meneroka sama ada aplikasi tesaurus berasaskan gamificasi boleh
digunakan untuk memperbaiki tahap penguasaan perbendaharaan kata
dalam Bahasa Inggeris dalam kalangan pelajar universiti awam di
Malaysia. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa pelajar mempunyai
pengalaman yang kurang dalam menggunakan aplikasi tesaurus
berbanding pembelajaran bahasa berasaskan permainan atau aplikasi
lain. Pelajar lebih suka menggunakan pembelajaran mudah alih
berbanding pendekatan tradisional, lebih suka platform dalam talian dan
bukannya aplikasi mudah alih, dan memperoleh atau membina
perbendaharaan kata mereka melalui menonton filem dan mendengar
muzik. Meskipun fakta menyatakan bahawa kebanyakan pelajar
mempunyai pengalaman yang mencukupi dalam penggunaan aplikasi
mudah alih dan permainan, namun mereka jarang menggunakan
platform tersebut untuk tujuan pembelajaran. Ini menunjukkan bahawa
adalah penting untuk menggabungkan elemen permainan ke dalam
platform pembelajaran khususnya dalam pembelajaran perbendaharaan
kata Bahasa Inggeris sebagai satu cara untuk menjana motivasi dan
penglibatan pelajar. Oleh yang demikian, pensyarah perlu memberi
tumpuan lebih kepada penggunaan yang jelas terhadap teknologi digital
mudah alih dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran di bilik darjah.

vi
 LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE i

DECLARATION ii
CERTIFICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi

ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
LIST OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background of the Study 2

1.3 Problem Statement 6
1.4 Objectives of the Study 7

1.5 Research Questions 8

1.6 Hypotheses of Study 9

1.7 Limitations of the Study 10

1.8 Significance of the Study 11

1.9 Operational Definition 11

1.10 Conceptual Framework 14

1.11 Summary 16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 18

2.2 Theoretical Framework 18

vii
 2.2.1 Constructionism 18
2.2.2 Transactional Distance Theory 21
2.2.3 Computer-Mediated Communication 23
2.3 Community of Inquiry Framework 25
2.4 Relationship between Teaching Presence and Course 29
Satisfaction

2.5 Summary 50

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 51

3.2 Research Design 51

3.3 Participants, Sampling Design and Site 52
3.4 Instrument 52
3.5 Pilot Study 54

3.6 Summary 61

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

4.1 Introduction 62

4.2 The Profile of Students’ Demographics and Instrument 62

Reliability
4.2.1 Student Demographics 62
4.2.2 Normality 64
4.2.3 Instrument Reliability 65
4.3 Research Questions 66
4.3.1 Research Question One: Results 66

4.3.2 Research Question Two: Relationship between 71

Teaching Presence and Course Satisfaction

4.4 Summary 80

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction 81
5.2 Conclusions for Research Questions One: Mean and 81

viii
 Standard Deviation for Each Scale
5.3 Implications 98

5.7.1 Implication for Teaching Presence 99

5.7.2 Implication for Social Presence 100

5.7.3 Implication for Cognitive Presence 100
5.4 Limitations of the Research 101

5.5 Future Research 102

5.6 Conclusion 103

BIBLIOGRAPHY 104

APPENDICES 129

LIST OF TABLES

ix
 Page
Table 3.1 : Survey Variables 53
Table 3.2 : The independent, Dependent, and 56
Demographic Variables
Table 3.3 : Guideline for Interpreting Pearson Correlation 58
Table 3.4 : Research Question, Type of Variable, and Type 59
of Statistical Approach for Statistical Test
Table 4.1 : Demographics Variables (Dichotomous 63
Variables) Frequencies and Percentages (n =
30)
Table 4.2 : Tests of Normality (n=30) 64
Table 4.3 : The Reliability for Teaching Presence, Social 66
Presence, Cognitive Presence, and Course
Satisfaction Scale

LIST OF FIGURES

x
 Page
Figure 2.1 : COI Framework and Students’ Online Learning 27
Experience

Figure 4.1 : The Bar Chart of Number of Courses 63

Completed Prior to Enrolling in this Course

Figure 4.2 : Q-Q Plot for Cognitive Presence 65

Figure 4.3 : Simple Scatter with Fit Line of Average of Total 71

Teaching Presence by Average of Total Course
Satisfaction

Figure 5.1 : Diagram Showing Overall Relationships 97

Established in The Study

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xi
 BL - Blended Learning

COI - Community of Inquiry

LMS - Learning Management System

UMS - University Malaysia Sabah

LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A : Questionnaire: Community of Inquiry 129
Instrument

xii
Appendix B : Reliability Statistics 134
Appendix C : Pearson Correlation 139

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Blended Learning (BL) has taken on a prominent role in the academic

world and has been dubbed the new norm in learning. One reason for its
growing appeal to students is attributed to the flexibility afforded by
anytime-anywhere online learning whilst still retaining an element of
face-to-face interaction synonymous with traditional classroom settings.
During this COVID-19 pandemic, Blended Learning (BL) gained fresh
impetus in higher education with an inbuilt ability to continue supporting
and guiding learning while offline.

To avoid the pitfalls and weaknesses of fully online learning, the

adoption of BL must take a different route that promotes course
satisfaction and not just offer an alternative mode of learning. There are
many variables associated with course satisfaction, and the wide range
of variables has posed some difficulties for organizing them into a
comprehensive whole to assess online learning programmes. Recognizing
that this study is unable to cover the multiplicity of variables linked to
course satisfaction, the study will focus on evaluating course satisfaction
using the Community of Inquiry (COI) Framework. Specifically, the three
variables teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence
forms the backbone for the COI framework.

This chapter begins with an appraisal of BL and the adoption of

course satisfaction as a measuring yardstick for evaluating BL. It
presents an overview of the wider research into the influence of BL to set
the context and rationale for this study. With BL now being offered on a
wider scale, it has become expedient to evaluate the pedagogical basis
for this mix of traditional classroom and online instruction. The study will

1.2 Background of the Study

The current study’s research problem is based on the contention that

most of Malaysian undergraduate students are being faced with the
problem of having a basic to low level of English language vocabulary.
This therefore pulls back the students’ ability to communicate their ideas
smoothly and with enough confidence.

Similarly, the current global market economy requires individuals

with highly competitive skills whereby knowing better English is an added
advantage. For that reason, students with proficient communicative skills
have a broader chance to position themselves in the market arena.
However, most of the existing research are seemed to be not sufficient
enough to addressing the solutions or alternatives that could facilitate
English language vocabulary acquisition. This is since most of those
studies focus on other fields and somewhat English language vocabulary
acquisition was less emphasized.

1.3 Problem Statement

Multiple studies have been conducted affirming the relationship between

these three COI constructs and course satisfaction. Most of these studies
have however centred around online graduate programmes. For the most
part, they have also been situated in western contexts.

In contrast to the ‘traditional chalk and talk’ or teacher-centered

approach to teaching typical of the 1960’s and 1970’s classroom, there
has been a noticeable shift towards constructivist approaches to learning
(Brophy, 1999). This student-centered approach focused on cultivating a

2
learning environment where knowledge is cocreated by a partnering
relationship between teacher and students. The approach did not remove
the need for teaching presence but found it necessary to be augmented
by student engagement. Cognitive presence then becomes the goal of
the educational experience in engaging the learner (Garrison et al.,
2000).

Whilst the focus in this study is related to course satisfaction it is

important to note that there are other approaches to assessing academic
success. Traditionally, academic achievement, usually in the form of
graded assessments has been at the forefront of most published research
when it comes to measuring academic success (Barnard-Brak, Paton, &
Lan, 2010). Whilst this is necessary to assess the effectiveness of
teaching practice, research has shown that grades are not necessarily
accurate measures of learning or advancement in cognition (Arum &
Roksa, 2011).

Although researches in other countries have now been expanding,

few have focused on undergraduate programmes. With Covid-19 now on
our doorstep, the increased pressure to roll out BL programmes in
undergraduate settings has made it even more important to extend the
research base. The review of literature indicates that the existing body of
studies that investigate teaching presence, social presence and cognitive
presence as predictors of satisfaction in BL programmes does not
differentiate graduate from undergraduate courses.

Furthermore, when entering higher education, students face a

multiplicity of issues ranging from the academic to the social (Bean &
Eaton, 2001; Tinto, 1975). They face tasks that challenge their academic
capabilities – tasks which include research, report writing, understanding
new concepts, problem solving, and sitting for exams. In addition to
encountering dead ends on assignments, they are required to surmount
social and other challenges at the same time: time management,
negotiating social expectations, oscillating between independent and
group work, and dealing with conflicts. To face and overcome these

3
challenges, students require a wide range of skills as well as maturity
and discipline to maintain motivation and keep on track. For a fresh
undergraduate, the pathway to academic success is littered with a
multiplicity of complications that could trigger dissatisfaction and early
drop-out.

In a study by Levy (2007), course satisfaction in an online learning

context was identified as a key factor in students deciding to opt out or
complete their courses. The study showed a significant relationship
between students who are academically dissatisfied with their
educational experience and those who are likely to drop out and
discontinue their studies. Several studies have since emerged confirming
this connection between students’ satisfaction and academic persistence
and other indicators of academic success (Sinclaire, 2014).

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The following were the objectives:

i. To determine the level of teaching presence, social

presence, cognitive presence, and course satisfaction.
ii. To determine the correlation between teaching presence
and course satisfaction.
iii. To determine the correlation between social presence and
course satisfaction.
iv. To determine the correlation between cognitive presence
and course satisfaction.
v. To determine the most dominant factor of teaching, social
and cognitive presence that determines course satisfaction.
vi. To determine the credibility of findings

1.5 Research Questions

4
To examine the correlations of teaching presence, social presence, and
cognitive presence towards course satisfaction in a BL context, the
following general research questions shall be addressed:

RQ1 - Do third-year Malaysian undergraduates have a positive perception

towards teaching presence, social presence, cognitive presence,
and course satisfaction in undertaking a BL course in UMS?
RQ2 - Is there any significant correlation between teaching presence and
course satisfaction among third-year Malaysian undergraduates
undertaking a BL course in UMS?
RQ3 - Is there any significant correlation between social presence and
course satisfaction among third-year Malaysian undergraduates
undertaking a BL course in UMS?
RQ4 - Is there any significant correlation between cognitive presence and
course satisfaction among third-year Malaysian undergraduates
undertaking a BL course in UMS?
RQ5 - Which factor of teaching, social, and cognitive presence is
dominant in determining course satisfaction among third-year
Malaysian undergraduates undertaking a BL course in UMS?
RQ6 - Three open-ended questions to create non-restricted opportunities
for exploring close-ended responses and assess credibility of
findings:
a. What would you recommend to improving learning on
Blended Learning courses?
b. What factors contributed to your dissatisfaction with Blended
Learning?
c. What factors contributed to your satisfaction with Blended
Learning?

1.6 Hypotheses of Study

The hypotheses of the study are as follows:

Research Question 1:

5
Third year Malaysian undergraduates undertaking a BL course in UMS
generally have a positive perception towards teaching presence, social
presence, cognitive presence, and course satisfaction.

Research Question 2:
Ho2: A significant correlation exists between teaching presence and
course satisfaction among third-year Malaysian undergraduates
undertaking a BL course in UMS at the α = .05 level.

Research Question 3:
Ho3: A significant correlation exists between social presence and
course satisfaction among third-year Malaysian undergraduates
undertaking a BL course in UMS at the α = .05 level.

1.7 Theoretical Framework

To provide a comprehensive understanding of this research study, a

scholarly analysis of theories and background studies was conducted to
examine views, relationships and contribution on the issue of using
game-based technique in English language vocabulary acquisition. The
theoretical framework of this study is based upon previous literature as
well as from current assumptions that were developed in this research.
Based on past theories for instance, the first headache or difficulty in
learning a foreign language that students would encounter is usually
remembering words (Bahadorfar, 2013; Hu Hai-peng & Deng Li-jing,
2007). This therefore gives rise to the assertion or notion that employing
a vocabulary learning strategy is the key towards learning a foreign
language (Nayan & Krishnasamy, 2015).

A strategy that has been extensively utilised to assist learners

cope with English language learning is the use of ICT as a method to
enrich students with the power to learn grammar and vocabulary at their
own pace (Yunus et al., 2009). Unfortunately, given the rapid growth in
digital technology, using ICT itself and computer is no longer sufficient.

6
Many students these days are very adept at using smart phone
technology which in turn has increased the use of mobile apps especially
games and dictionary apps (Gao, 2013). Using game-based technique
would therefore be highly recommended since it can help increase user
motivation. Furthermore, due to the theory that learning new vocabulary
in a second language requires between five to 16 repeated exposures,
games can help provide such a condition (Nation, 1990, as cited in Lam,
2014).

1.8 Conceptual Framework

In this discussion on the conceptual framework, we will first distinguish it

from a theoretical framework. A theoretical framework refers to a self-
contained model or system of knowledge which has been established and
widely acknowledged in the academic world. Merriam (2001) describes
the theoretical framework as the lens used by the researcher to view the
world.

In comparison, a conceptual framework is not an established fact

but represents an educated construct of how things work in conceptual
form. It remains to be tested and is conceived in the researcher’s mind
with a scientific understanding of how a matter or research problem will
be analyzed (Creswell, 1994). It can also be viewed as an outline of “the
key factors, constructs or variables and presumes relationships among
them”. (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 440).

The roadmap for the online learning experience is built on an

understanding that technology provides a platform to advance
knowledge through networking, pursuit of shared interests and goals
between peers and instructors. The conceptual framework for the
‘community of inquiry framework’ assumes learning under guidance
occurs in the nexus of meaningful social relationships, and when such a

7
community of learning is formed, it will be able to foster cooperative
approaches which replace competition with collaboration, resulting in
deeper learning and course satisfaction (Darling-Hammond, 2002). The
collaborative nature of the social relationships along shared purposes
and goals supported by the technology of anytime and anywhere
connectivity offers improved opportunities for engaged learning and
accelerating mastery of a subject.

The framework identifies three overlapping core processes that

interact with each to bring about learning: teaching presence, social
presence, and cognitive presence. Collectively, they define the learning
experience in a BL environment. The hotspot of learning happens at the
point where the right levels and interactions of these “presences” are
achieved to stimulate active engagement and deep learning. The
fundamental design setting is a community of inquiry that harnesses
collaborative synergy in the learning activities. When the student gains
mastery of the subject through this community, the by-product will
include course satisfaction.
Figure 1.1 illustrates a simplified conceptual framework with the three
presences of the COI model (Garrison et al., 2000) and its association
with course satisfaction in a blended learning module.

8
Figure 1.1 : Conceptual Framework of Presences and Course
Satisfaction

1.9 Summary

Technological innovations in the delivery of instruction in higher

education have brought about significant changes. Perhaps the most
important development was the acceptance and implementation of
digital technology in mainstream education. The adoption of online

9
facilities to enhance lessons and break away from chalk and talk
classroom practice has been on the rise in universities and colleges.
Academic courses have been redesigned and schedules rearranged to
take pedagogical advantage of the new modalities. Traditional face-to-
face classrooms are being reconstituted with online resources to become
what is popularly known as BL. Faculty and students can now choose
both face-to-face and the more flexible online interactions versus an
“either or” traditional classroom or fully online learning setting. BL is
here to stay and the challenge that now remains is how to best harness
BL to advance learning.

This chapter provides a brief overview of BL and an outline of the

COI framework in conceptualizing the relationship between the key
learning processes and perceptions of satisfaction in BL. It proposes
using the COI framework to provide a framing perspective with which to
evaluate the potential benefit of BL described in this paper.

10
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Chapter two reviews the theory and research related to the study of the
COI. Studies have also shown that motivational factors such as
satisfaction has been linked to successful completion of the course and
suitable for assessing online learning (Chang & Fisher, 2003). The focus
of this study is to now see whether BL as a modality distinct from
traditional and fully online settings is related to course satisfaction.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

The theory underpinning the COI framework is broadly based on a

combination of constructivism learning theory and computer-mediated
communication.

2.2.1 Constructionism
Dewey, an early proponent of constructivism, criticized the factory model
of school which confined the role of a teacher to one who transmits
information to students in a machine-like form (Dewey, 1938). For him,
acquiring knowledge through rote learning and memorization is
considered shallow and ineffectual for learning. Instead, learning is
enhanced when the learner seeks to engage with fresh information
through interaction with others, reflection, and action. In this process, the
learner draws understanding from pre-existing stockpiles of prior
knowledge and merges it with the fresh input of information being
presented. This calls for a purposeful restructuring of existing knowledge.
It begins when the process of reconstructing new knowledge falls into the
hands of the learner. Where the instructor moves away from a purely
didactic approach to make room for a collaborative approach, interaction
with faculty and peers becomes two-way traffic and students make
better sense of the new knowledge and thus gain greater coherence in
learning. In abandoning the factory model, the learning communities
could then become unshackled and transformed into a new delivery
system with a facilitating structure for the practice of collaborative
learning (Linda Darling-Hammond, 2002).

The understanding that learning resides within teacher-student

interaction being extended to student-peer interactions is profoundly
relational; bound to shared purposes through activities of mutual trust,
cooperation, and collaboration. This form of collaborative learning is a
stark contrast to school settings which prize individualistic performance
subjected to chalk-and-talk classes and underlying weaknesses inherent
in the competitiveness of exam-based grading systems (Carolan, 2014).

It also parallels Jones’ (2014) findings which demonstrated that

productive learning outcomes are generated when students engage in
small group discussions, come together with a shared goal, help each
other advance and make learning more effective. Her findings suggest
that the effectiveness of this type of discussion group is linked to
collaboration, and it is these factors that promote critical thinking and
adds to their collective learning process. Interestingly, the findings went
onto infer that course satisfaction is felt by group members when the
discussion group is perceived to function effectively.

Vygotsky (1978) advanced the constructionism of Dewey having

been convinced that social interaction forms the bedrock of constructive
learning. Vygotsky put forward the notion that learning takes place within
the Zone of Proximal Development. It is premised on the understanding
that instructors or peers can act as mentors to help learners visualize

12
new concepts and paradigms. This model envisages two developmental
zones:

a) The zone of actual development – the level where the learner has
sufficient proficiency and can problem-solve independently.
b) The zone of development potential (ZDP) – the level where the
learner has yet to reach a new paradigm or understanding. With
input from others, the mental blocks to learning can be removed
and learning advance to the desired zone.

The ZDP is the level at which new learning takes place. It

represents cognitive processes that are still in the making, and this
process is best guided by a mentor or in collaboration with peers. With a
sense of belonging and community being established, relationships
flourish, trust and mutual support are generated, and individuals are
spurred onto higher attainments (Fisher, Sonn, & Bishop, 2002). This
relational and self-help community will help struggling students surmount
difficulties and provide the momentum needed for students to keep pace
with their courses. In education, both social support and intellectual input
are important for academic pursuits (Beauchot & Bullen 2005, Dede,
1996). Lipman (2003) emphasizes this community aspect of education
and spoke of,

“... 'converting the classroom into a community of inquiry' in

which students listen to each other with respect, build on one
another's ideas, challenge one another .....” ( Lipman, 2003:
pp. 20–21).

In the 1960’s, Lipman’s words would have been considered

revolutionary in a milieu when institutions thrived on chalk and talk
classrooms. Meanwhile, strong winds of “community thinking” were also
blowing among the proponents of online learning. This concept of
community is important because in conventional distance education, the
points of contact and quality of communication are limited in comparison
with a traditional classroom environment. Historically, distance learning

13
was offered as a correspondence course where learning takes place
largely through interaction with the material sent to the learner.
Generally, this form of study allowed students the flexibility and
independence of self-directed learning, but it did not provide any contact
point with other learners. There was certainly no classroom experience
and students learned in isolation, but things were to change with the
advent of online learning.

In the 1980s, the internet was in its infancy when Hiltz (1986) broke
away from the conventional distance learning approach and became one
of the first to pioneer the building of a “virtual classroom.” Inspired by
this development, Paulsen (1988) gave vision to a new pedagogical
paradigm which required applying the innovative technology to creating
new learning platforms rather than replicate existing models of distance
learning or traditional classrooms.

Kaye understood the predicament of the isolated learner in distant

learning and realized that the future lay in designing a new kind of
distance education (Kaye, 1992). For Kaye, the redesign would require
the new technology to be brought to bear on reinventing distance
learning and creating interactive learning platforms - so that the isolated
learner syndrome could be eradicated. This later set the direction for
advocating an innovative approach to online education which was
characterized by collaborative instructional design and networked,
asynchronous group communication (Harasim, 2000). From then on, the
doors were flung wide open for modelling an online learning framework
which could invigorate deeper learning through the process of social
discourse brought about by the new capabilities of technology. Many
learning theories developed by constructivist learning theorists have
since emerged from this perspective.

2.2.2 Transactional Distance Theory

One of the earlier influential online theories was proposed by Moore

14
(1993) and was called the theory of transactional distance. The theory
attempted to conceptualize distance learning into three distinct
categories of learner-teacher interaction, learner-learner interaction, and
learner-content interaction. Before the advancement of
telecommunications, distance learning meant that physical distance
created a divide between teacher and student, student and student, and
the possibility of interaction between these entities remained minimal.
This geographical distance presented a significant barrier for learning
and the only form of viable interaction was thus with the course material
or content. However, for Moore (1993), the primary issue was not the
physical distance, but the psychological and communication barrier
associated with the distance; the root cause for potential
misunderstanding being the lack or interaction between teacher and
students. This commonly perceived problem of physical distance was
turned around and reinterpreted as a communication barrier. To address
this weakness in distance education, there would thus be a need to
overcome the communication gap which he named the transactional
distance. Improving interaction was thus viewed as the way to reduce or
eliminate the transactional distance and became the key point in Moore’s
theory of transactional distance.

Transactional distance theory marked a ground-breaking change in

research direction, which up to then had mainly concentrated on the
organizational or structural aspects of online learning – how to make it
more accessible, more user-friendly, and more secure. Moore’s
transactional distance theory began to shift the paradigm and caused
scholars to consider the crucial role of interaction in distance learning.
(Moore & Kearsley, 1996; McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996). Scholars
proposed that interactivity be designed and intentionally woven into an
online instructional programme for promoting effective learning. Katz
(2000) reflected this view by stating that the new distance learning
programme should be highly interactive and resemble a college lecture
setting.

Many studies have gone onto confirm that the locus of a

15
community is in the relationship and that it is possible to envisage the
existence of an online community which is neither dependent on time nor
location (Garton et al, 1997). Studies have confirmed that a form of
community and belonging can exist in a virtual world ( Baym, 2000). As
early as 1993, Rheingold already introduced the term virtual community
and described it as,

“... a group of people who may or may not meet one another
face to face, and who exchange words and ideas through the
mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks. In
cyberspace, we chat and argue, engage in intellectual
intercourse, .….. The way a few of us live now might be the
way a larger population will live, decades hence.” (A slice of
My Life in Virtual Community).

About a quarter of a century later, a recent Pew Research Center

survey has confirmed Rheingold’s prediction in reporting that 81% of
Americans go online daily (Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C.
2019).

2.2.3 Computer-Mediated Communication

Harasim (2012) witnessed this convergence of constructivist paradigms
coinciding with the development of web-based technology giving birth
to a particular novel form of constructivist orientation that was
enmeshed in technology. In the early days, it was known as computer-
mediated communication. With rapid advancement in technology and
an increasing awareness of the importance of collaboration in online
learning, computer-mediated communication naturally morphed into
online collaborative learning theory. She describes online collaborative
learning theory as a model of learning where students collaborate with
each other to create knowledge and generate higher order learning;
collective participation in groups which goes beyond reciting correct

16
answers to engaging in problem-solving and opening new dimensions of
learning (Harasim, 2012).

In the earlier approaches, technology was adopted with the

purpose of replacing the activities undertaken by human instructors or
exchanging paper submissions with digitalized ones. With online
collaborative learning theories, the goal of technology has been
repurposed to improve the quality of online interactions. In this online
environment, technology does not replace the instructor, nor is it used to
only change the mode of content delivery, but the aim of educators is to
mobilize the community of inquiry through social discourse and
collaborative efforts. The goal is to provide platforms for exchange of
information, stimulate interests, engage students using interactive
activities, expand reflective processes and thereby unleash higher order
thinking and learning. This is online collaborative learning theory at its
best riding on the back of constructivism learning theory. It is a student-
centred approach that favours independent learners. This undergirds
today’s BL model.

Whilst scholars are in general agreement with constructivism

learning theory, Serdyukov (2015) however raises an important
qualification for adopting the collaborative student-centred pedagogy for
online learning. The emphasis on facilitation in online learning changes
the role of the instructor from “content expert” to “process expert”. It
assumes students would benefit from being funnelled towards
independent learning. The instructor cum facilitator assumes the
functions of the “process expert” who seeks to monitor and navigate the
discourse process so that higher order thinking is achieved (Ali et al,
2017).

Serdyukov (2015) argues that this online model is not suited to all
students, but only for students who are able to take on the
responsibilities for independent learning. For him, the type of student
that will succeed are those who are self-motivated, self-directed, and
disciplined. In a survey conducted among online students taking

17
graduate teacher education programs in 2012, he found that the majority
of surveyed students (62.0%) preferred the more familiar pathway of
university-organized, teacher-led classes instead of the more
independent and flexible option of online learning (Serdyukova &
Serdyukov, 2013). Despite these graduate students having already
attained tertiary education or equivalent, only 34.9% expressed
confidence with independent learning. On this basis, the authors feel that
the majority of undergraduate students who have passed through a
teacher-led classroom system of schooling will likely struggle in an online
module.

The study of Geng et al (2019) in their description of self-directed

learning helps to illuminate Serdyukov’s research on independent
learning. In their study, they found that the combination of “self-directed
learning” and “technology readiness” contributed to an increased level of
learning motivation in BL. This is contrasted with only “technology
readiness” influencing learning motivation in a non-BL environment, but
not in a BL environment. The results indicate that students with the
twinned inclinations of self-direction and computer literacy are more
motivated to learning in a BL setting. This implies that students who are
less dependent on teachers and who possess an adequate level of
computer proficiency are better suited to the self-directed learning
approaches typical of BL courses.

Why is technology readiness important? In a BL setting, students

are expected to pursue learning online and to engage with peers using
online platforms. Why self-directed learning? BL courses offer more
flexibility and students are therefore expected to independently manage
their learning and assume a high degree of responsibility for setting their
own educational goals. This is contrasted with teacher-dependent
students who need constant pushing and goal setting. In a face-to-face
classroom setting, the presence of the instructor is there to direct, deliver
content, coerce, and set the pace of learning. However, this teacher-led
model introduces inflexible time schedules and restrictive controls for the
more independent self-directed student. Thus, students who do not have

18
both sets of inclinations towards self-directed learning and technology
readiness, would unlikely benefit from BL courses. Similarly, students
who are only inclined towards one of the two attributes would also be
unlikely to benefit from BL courses.

Serdyukov (2015) believes that despite the obvious benefits of

online learning with independent learning and flexibility, students
generally placed greater confidence in the security of the classroom and
teacher. Equally telling is that all these students in the study by
Serdyukova and Serdyukov (2013) had already obtained university
degrees and yet the majority still felt unprepared for independent
learning - thinking perhaps they lacked the mental abilities, discipline, or
skills to meet course demands and responsibilities associated with
independent learning. Serdyukov’s conclusions are congruous with
several other scholars whose findings indicate that online delivery may
be more amenable to graduate education than fresh undergraduates
(Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Arbaugh, 2004; Shea & Bidjerano, 2010).

2.3 Community of Inquiry Framework

The COI framework emerged at a time when asynchronous, text-based

group discussions was being encouraged and conducted in higher
education (Garrison et al., 2001). This proved a sharp contrast to the
individualistic approach of conventional distance learning and traditional
classroom teaching (Garrison et al. (2010). The COI model offered a
theoretical framework with a systematic description and explanation of
the key processes and dynamics of student engagement in online
learning (Shea and Bidjerano, 2009).

Garrison et al. (2010) based the COI framework on John Dewey’s

earlier work and adopted the phrase “community of inquiry” from Lipman
(1991) (p. 6). A key feature of the online program proposed by Garrison
included peer-to-peer computer-based discussion forums.

19
 The practical outworking of this community of inquiry began when
Garrison had to design a fully online graduate course in a North American
university. He incorporated weekly computer-based discussion forums as
a critically important component of the course where students were
encouraged to work in teams. These forums were designed to enhance
peer-to-peer reflection, obtain feedback, and consolidate learning. Thus,
collaboration became an important pedagogy behind online discussion
forums and students were encouraged to learn collectively and
individually from each other. In this process, students were exposed to
different views, able to think outside the box, critic different perspectives
and construct new knowledge.

To capture the core constructs characterized by this learning

community and make sense of the new graduate program, Garrison,
Anderson, and Archer (2000) developed the Community of Inquiry (COI)
framework. Fig.2.1 illustrates the interactions among the three constructs
of the COI. The COI framework is predicated on the understanding that
these three constructs represent independent processes that act in
concert to promote learning and define the online learning experience
(Garrison, et al., 2003 b).

20
 Social presence has
been defined by
Garrison “as the ability
Cognitive presence is
of participants to
defined as the extent to
identify with the group
which learners are able
or course of study,
to construct and confirm
communicate
meaning through
purposefully in a trusting
sustained discourse in a
environment, and
critical community of
develop personal and
inquiry.” Garrison et al
affective relationships
2001.
progressively by way of
projecting their

Teaching presence is the “design,

facilitation and direction of
cognitive and social processes for
the purpose of realizing personally
meaningful and educationally
worthwhile learning outcomes.”
(Garrison, 2006).

Figure 2.1 : COI Framework and Students’ Online Learning

Experience

21
 Table 2.1: Constructs, Sub-constructs, and Meaning in the
Teaching Presence, Social Presence, and Cognitive Presence
Construct
Constructs Sub- Meaning
constructs
Teaching Design and The development of the process,
presence organization structure, evaluation, and
interaction components of the
course.
Establishing and maintaining
Facilitation classroom interaction through
modeling of behaviors,
encouragement, supporting, and
creating a positive learning
atmosphere
Describes the instructor’s role as a
Direct subject matter expert and sharing
instruction knowledge with the students.

Social Affective Emotions/feelings

presence expression
Open Risk-free expression
communication
Group cohesion Encouraging collaboration
Cognitive Triggering An issue, dilemma, or problem
presence events (Sense of puzzlement)
Exploration Students search for information to
gain knowledge and make sense of
the problem (Information
exchange)
Integration Gain meaning from the ideas
developed during the exploration
phase (Connecting idea)
Resolution Applying new knowledge

Note; Adapted from D. R. Garrison & J. B. Arbaugh. 2007. Researching the

Community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions.
The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (3), 159.

22
2.4 Summary

This literature review examined the COI framework as a theoretical

model that could be used to investigate key predictor variables on course
satisfaction. The three COI constructs of teaching presence, social
presence, and cognitive presence were identified as the core processes
undergirding the learning experience and predictors of course
satisfaction both individually and collectively.

23
 Table 2.2: Retention Time, Area, Height and % Area of Standards
Standards Retention Time Area (mUA) Height (mUA) Area (%)
(min)
Gallic acid 2.61 8416.88 619.74 100.00
Rutin 2.87 3771.66 277.45 100.00
Ascorbic Acid 3.15 19602.30 855.53 100.00
Quercetin 5.78 6126.98 292.44 100.00
Kaempferol 8.98 611.26 21.69 100.00
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the research design and methods for this study. It
deals with the target population, sampling size, instrumentation,
procedures, data collection, data analysis, and limitations. This study
focuses on the different variables of the COI framework, such as teaching
presence, social presence, and cognitive presence, and its relationship to
course satisfaction in a BL environment.

3.2 Research Design

This research employed a quantitative associational research design

using Likert-scale surveys and open-ended questions to investigate the
relationship between the three constructs of the COI model and the
dependent variable, course satisfaction. The purpose of a relationship-
based research design is not to establish cause and effect but to
understand the relationship between the variables, and to assess the
extent to which an outcome can be predicted when another one or more
variable is known (Curry, et al. 2009). The open-ended questions were
added to provide a more coherent picture of the research outcome and
elucidate matters that either a purely quantitative or purely qualitative
study on its own is unable to discover (Halcomb and Andrews, 2005). In
bringing these two forms of complementing research data together, the
quality of analysis is enhanced, and better interpretation of findings is
generated (Polit & Hungler, 1995).
3.3 Participants, Sampling Design and Site

The study targeted third-year undergraduate students from Universiti

Malaysia Sabah (UMS) enrolled in a BL course offered on campus,
comprising a cohort size of thirty-five students. UMS was chosen as it is
the premier public university in Sabah attracting local students from all
over the State and has begun offering BL modules.

To get the highest number of respondents possible, the

participants were briefed on the survey and asked to undertake the
survey whilst in the classroom. In this study, thirty-two students
volunteered and submitted their completed survey on this occasion.
However, two out of the thirty-two questionnaires were incomplete and
were omitted in the analysis. This is a form of purposive sampling.
Purposive sampling represents the study of a limited number of
participants based on specific criteria and not the entire population;
hence it is able to offer savings on time and cost ( Moore and McCabe,
1993). Problem for stats??

The criterion of third-year undergraduates was adopted because

they were familiar with the learning management system (LMS) utilized
by the university, already have prior experience of online learning and
were conversant with navigating the educational software. This criterion
would eliminate the dissatisfaction associated with lack of computer
literacy and online experience. With this technical impediment being set
aside, the findings would not be encumbered with technical issues and
better serve as an assessment of students perceived satisfaction of the
BL course in terms of their engagement with the three independent COI
variables.

3.4 Instrument

26
The primary instrument for guiding and informing this study is the COI
survey using a four-point response scale. For this study and to improve
reliability, it has been extended to a six-point scale (Preston and Colman,
2000).

For the instrument to capture and analyse the additional data of

demographic factors and course satisfaction, the supplementary personal
data and course satisfaction scales were added. Strachota (2001) had
developed the student satisfaction scale which has been used for
studying online research and a modified version of Strachota’s student
satisfaction scale was adapted for this study.

The survey was divided into six sections. The first section detailed
participants’ demographics and the next three sections addressed the
three presences with a total of thirty-four questions, and the fifth, course
satisfaction, had twelve questions. The sixth section comprised three
open-ended questions (as shown in Appendix A).

Table 3.1: Survey Variables

Independent Dependent
Social presence Course satisfaction
Teaching presence
Cognitive presence

27
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the data analysis and findings of the survey as
specified in the research objectives and questions in Chapter One.

4.2 The Profile of Students’ Demographics and Instrument

Reliability

The raw data was entered into SPSS version 25. The data was checked
for errors and outliers, coded, and cleaned. Outliers and anomalies were
identified, and issues were fixed (Leech et al., 2005)

4.2.1 Student Demographics

The female students in this study were 87%. Only ninety seven percent
(97%) of the respondents took TESL course who were full-time (100%).
The course as identified as in BL mode of study. The following were
background information of the respondents (Table 4.1).
 Table 4.1: Demographics Variables (Dichotomous Variables)
Frequencies and Percentages (n = 30)
Demographics Variables (Dichotomous
Variables) n %
Gender
Male 4 13
Female 26 87

Required Course
Yes (Major/Core) 29 97
No (Elective) 1 3

Registration Status
Full Time 30 100
Part Time 0 0

Figure 4.1 : The Bar Chart of Number of Courses Completed

Prior to Enrolling in this Course
Source : Cohen, 1988

29
4.3 Research Questions

4.3.1 Research Question One: Results

Descriptive statistics were used to assess the means and standard
deviations for each item with the dependent variable being course
satisfaction. The independent variables were student responses to each
of the COI constructs of teaching presence (13 items), social presence (9
items) and cognitive presence (12 items), measured on a 6 point Likert
scale, with Strongly Disagree = 1 and Strongly Agree = 6. The maximum
score possible for each item was six. Table 4.4 provides an indication of
the level of students’ attitude towards each of the scales and the mean
score.

Table 4.4 The Level of Students’ Attitude towards Teaching

Presence, Social Presence, Cognitive Presence and Course
Satisfaction using the Mean Score
Level of Attitude Mean Score
Low 1.00 – 2.66
Medium 2.67 – 4.32
High 4.33 – 6.00

4.3.2 ICT versus English Language Learnin

Although many students are aware of the benefits of using ICT to learn
English language, there is still a need to educate them about the rightful
use of these ICT devices (Yunus, Lubis & Lin, 2009). According to Yunus et
al. (2009), students are spending much of their time surfing the internet
rather than learning.

More importantly, using ICT could equip students with the power to
learn grammar and vocabulary at their own pace. In addition, the study
noted that it is a good idea to incorporate games into learning
vocabulary as an approach to motivate students. That way, students will
not only be enticed to spend more time learning, but also be able to have
fun moments whilst acquiring knowledge (Yunus et al., 2009).

30
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the findings of the study were discussed with critical
literature review supports. The shortcomings of the study and its
implications will also be looked into with suggestions for future research.

5.2 Conclusions for Research Questions One: Mean and

Standard Deviation for Each Scale

Based on the mean scores reported, a relatively high sense of all the
three constructs was observed with cognitive presence receiving the
highest ratings (M = 5.01), followed by the teaching presence (M = 4.99),
and social presence (M = 4.84). The students also agreed that they were
satisfied with the course (M = 4.55). This indicates that the COI
constructs of teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence
were distinctively present in the online learning environment designed
for the course and that the students also perceived a high level of course
satisfaction with the BL course.

5.3 Study Summary

This study focused on three independent variables of the COI framework

constructs (teaching, social and cognitive presences) and the dependent
variable course satisfaction. Both social presence and cognitive presence
were found statistically significant as predictors for course satisfaction.
Teaching presence was found not to be associated with course
satisfaction. However, the overall regression, which had all the three
predictors acting as a combined whole, was statistically significant.
Hence the study recognizes that all three presences have a role to play in
the process of predicting course satisfaction. Figure 5.1 provides a
simplified diagrammatic summary of the relationships in its entirety.

Teaching
Presence

Social
Presence
Course
Satisfaction
Cognitive
Presence

Figure 5.1 : Diagram Showing Overall Relationships

Established in The Study

This part summarizes some key findings. It is acknowledged that

given the sample size, the statistical significance of this exploratory
research being limited, the study produced data that might assist further
research. The data suggests that internet connectivity and availability
topped the list of issues (31%) and less than 11% had issues with using
the software or accessing a computer to participate in the online
discussions. Most respondents agreed they had previous experience of
online discussions for study purposes, and most indicated they had no
issue with the online LMS. It seems that provided the internet
connectivity is accessible and software is reasonably easy to use, it is the
interaction within the online discussions that is important to students.

32
5.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, this study showed that the COI constructs of teaching

presence, social presence and cognitive presence were distinctively
present in the online learning environment and that the students also
perceived a high level of course satisfaction with the BL course. An
additional outcome of this study was further validation of the COI survey
as a reliable tool to assess students’ perceived course satisfaction.

33
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

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.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x

Alaulamie, L. A. 2014. Teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive

presence as predictors of students’ satisfaction in an online
program at a Saudi University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Ohio University, United States.

Ali, A., & Smith, D. 2015. Issues in informing science and information
technology comparing social isolation effects on students attrition
in online versus face-to-face courses in computer literacy. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 12, 11–20.
Retrieved from http://iisit.org/Vol12/IISITv12p011-020Ali1784.pdf

Ali, M., Alshiek, H., Elbashir, A. M., Mohamed, A., Saeed, A., & Alsareii, A.
2017. Tutors ’ Role & Responsibility in ( Pbl ): Pros and Cons of
Subject Expert and Tutorial Process Expert Literature Overview.
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ], 4(3), 42–44.

Alias, N. A., & Jamaludin, H. 2005. The Aches of Online Distance

Learning : A Synthesis of. Asian Journal Of Distance Education, 3(2),
48–54.

Allen, E. I. & Seaman, J. 2008. Staying the course: Online education in the
United States. Retrieved from
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pd
f

Allen, E.I. & Seaman, J. 2011. Going the distance: Online education in the
United States. Retrieved from
http:/www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf.

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. 2002. Comparing student
satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in
higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance
Education, 16(2),83-97.

Aman, R. R. 2009. Improving student satisfaction and retention with

online instruction through systematic faculty peer review of courses.
Oregon State University. (An unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/11945/
Aman_Dissertation.pdf

Anderson, T. 2003.Getting the mix right again: An updated and

theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of

34
 Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230.

Anderson, T. and Dron, J. 2011. Three generations of distance education

pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 12.3, March 2011. Association of Learning Technologies
(2010). Technology in learning. http://repository.alt.ac.uk/839

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K. & Natvig, D. 2007. Strategies to engage

online students and reduce attrition rates. The Journal of Educators
Online, 4 (2): 1-14.

Annand, D. 2011. Social presence within the community of inquiry

framework. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 12(5), 40-56.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.924

Anthony, K. V. 2012. Analyzing the influences of course design and

gender on online participation. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 15(3)

Aragon, S. R. (Ed.) 2003. Facilitating learning in online environments.

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 100.

Arbaugh, J. B. 2000. Virtual classroom characteristics and student

satisfaction with Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management
Education, 24(1): 32.

Arbaugh, J.B. & Hwang, A. 2006. Does “teaching presence” exist in online
MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9: 9–21.

Armellini, A., & De Stefani, M. 2016. Social presence in the 21st century:
An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1202–1216.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12302

Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. 2006. Future Foreign Language Teachers' Social

and Cognitive Collaboration in an Online Environment. Language
Learning & Technology, 10(1), 42-66. Retrieved March 4, 2020
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74431/.

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. 2011. Academically adrift: Limited learning on

college campuses. University of Chicago Press.

Ashong, C. Y., & Commander, N. E. 2012. Ethnicity, gender, and

perceptions of online learning in higher education. Journal of Online
Teaching and Education, 8 (2). Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol8no2/ashong_0612.htm

Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. 2002, March. Lessons learned from
the hybrid course project. Teaching with Technology Today, 8: 1-6

35
Babb, S., Stewart, C., & Johnson, R. 2010. Constructing communication in
blended learning environments- Students’ perceptions of good
practices in hybrid courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning &
Teaching , 6(4), 735-753. Retrieved from: 144
http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online-education-trends/wpconten
t/uploads/Constructing-Communication-in-Blended-Learning-
EnvironmentsStudents%E2%80%99-Perceptions-of-Good-Practices-
in-Hybrid-Courses1.pdf

Bambara, C. S., Harbour, C. P., Davies, T. G. & Athey, S. 2009. The lived
experiences of community college students enrolled in high-risk
online courses. Community College Review, 36: 219-238.

Bangert, A. W. 2009. Building a validity argument for the community of

inquiry survey
instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(2): 104-111.

Barnard-Brak, Lucy & Lan, William & Paton, Valerie. 2010. Profiles in Self-
Regulated Learning in the Online Learning Environment.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
11. 10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.769.

Baym, N. 1995. The emergence of community in computer-mediated

communication. In S. Jones, (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-
mediated communication and community , pp. 138-163. Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage.

Baym, N. 2000. Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S.R. & Harasim, L. 2005. The online interaction
learning model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning
networks. In S.R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together
online: Research on asynchronous learning networks, pp. 19-37.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. K. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate:
A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(5), 775-786. Retrieved 12 15, 2019, from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00793.x

Bentley, K. J., Secret, M. C., & Cummings, C. R. (2015). The centrality of

social presence in online teaching and learning in social work.
Journal of Social Work Education, 51(3), 494–504.

36
 https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1043199

Beqiri, M. S., Chase, N. M. & Bishka, A. 2010. Online course delivery: An

empirical investigation of factors affecting student satisfaction.
Journal of Education for Business, 85(2): 95-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320903258527

Beuchot, A. & Bullen, M. 2005. Interactions and interpersonality in online

discussion forums. Distance Education, 26 (1): 67-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081285

Billups, F. D. 2008, October 23. Measuring College Student Satisfaction: A

Multi-Year Study of the actors Leading to Persistence. Paper
presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Northeastern
Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.

Biner, P. M., Summers, M., Dean, R. S., Bink, M. L., Anderson, J. L., &
Gelder, B. C. (1997). Personality Characteristics Predicting
Continuing Education Student Satisfaction with Interactive
Telecourses. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 45(3), 22-
32. Retrieved 12 22, 2019, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej551529

Blayone, T., Van Oostveen, R., Barber, W., Digiuseppe, M., & Childs, E.
2016. Dublin Institute of Technology ARROW@DIT Teaching and
Learning in a Digital Context Developing Learning Communities in
Fully Online Spaces: Positioning the Fully Online Learning
Community Model. 0–25.

Bliuc, A. M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P. & Piggott, L. 2011. A blended

learning approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences
of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their
relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education, 56:
856–864.

Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David
McKay Company.

Blum, K.D. 1999. Gender differences in asynchronous learning in higher

education: Learning styles, participation barriers and
communication patterns. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Network, 1(3). Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/
journal/Vol3_issue1/blum.htm

Bonk, C.J., Olson, T.M., Wisher, R.A. & Orvis, K.L. 2002. Learning from
focus groups: An examination of blended learning. Journal of
Distance Education, 17 (3): 97-118.

Braun, E. & Leidner, B. 2009. Academic course evaluation. Theoretical

and empirical distinctions between self- rated gain in competences

37
 and satisfaction with teaching behavior. European Psychologist,
14: 297-306.

Bradford, G., & Wyatt, S. 2010. Online learning and student satisfaction:
Academic standing, ethnicity and their influence on facilitated
learning, engagement, and information fluency. Internet and
Higher Education, doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.005

Brians, C. L., Willnat, L., Manheim, J. B. & Rich, R.C. 2011. Empirical
Political Analysis (8th edition). Boston, MA: Longman p. 105

Bray, E., Aoki, K. & Dlugosh, L. 2008. Predictors of learning satisfaction in

Japanese online distance learners. International Review of
Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9 (3), 1-24.
Brophy, J. 1999. Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday,
today, and tomorrow. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism:
Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 43–56).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, R. E. 2001. The process of community-building in distance

learning classes. Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 18−35.

Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Calvin, J. 2005. Explaining learner satisfaction with perceived knowledge

gained in web-based courses through course structure and learner
autonomy, Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. & Klein, S. P. 2006. Student engagement and student
learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education,
47 (1): 1 - 32.

Carolan, B. V. 2014. Social network analysis and education: Theory,

methods & applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452270104

Castle, S. R. & McGuire, C. J. 2001. An analysis of student self-assessment

of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments:
Implications for sustainable education delivery. International
Education Studies, 3(3): 36-40.

Chang, V. & Fisher, D. 2003. The validation and application of a new

learning environment instrument for online learning in higher
education. In Fisher, D.L. & Khine, M. S. (Eds.), Technology-rich
learning environments: A future perspective. pp. 1-18. Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing.

Chejlyk, S. 2006. The effects of online course format and three

components of student perceived interactions on overall course
satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(04).

38
Chen, Y. 2018. Cognitive Presence in Peer Facilitated Asynchronous
Online Discussion: The Patterns and How to Facilitate. ProQuest
LLC, (August).

Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. 2005. A catalog of biases in questionnaires.

Preventing Chronic Disease, 2(1), 1–13.

Choy, J. L.F., & Quek, C. L. 2016. Modelling relationships between

students’ academic achievement and community of inquiry in an
online learning environment for a blended course. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 106–124.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2500

Clark, H. H. & Krych, M. A. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees

for under-standing. Journal of Memory & Language, 50: 62-81.

Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, R. & Kinsel, E. 2007. Role adjustment for

learners in an online community of inquiry: Identifying the needs of
novice online learners. International Journal of Web-based Learning
and Teaching Technologies, 2(1): 1-16.

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J. & Swartz, L. B. 2014. Online instruction, E-

learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
15(6): 111-131.

Compton-Lilly, C. 2013. Building on What Children Bring: Cognitive and

Sociocultural Approaches to Teaching Literacy. The Journal of
Balanced Literacy Research and Instruction, 1(1), 3.

Corts, D.P., Lounsbury, J. W, Saudargas, R. A. & Tatum, H. E. 2000.

Assessing Undergraduate Satisfaction with an Academic
Department: A Method and Case Study. College Student Journal,
34 (3).

Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. 2011. Engaging the online learner. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor

analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7): 1-9.

Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage

Creswell, J. W. 2005. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

39
 evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd Edition).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Crocker, Jennifer. 2002. The Costs of Seeking Self–Esteem. Journal of

Social Issues. 58. 597-615. 10.1111/1540-4560.00279.

Cuadrado-García, M., Ruiz-Molina, M.E. & Montoro-Pons, J.D. 2010. Are

there gender differences in e-learning use and assessment?
Evidence from an inter university online project in Europe. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2): 367–371.

Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. 2013. Building modern online social
presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional
design implications for future trends. Education and Information
Technologies, 18(4), 661–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-
9192-1

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire: Community of Inquiry Instrument

I express my gratitude for you taking this online survey. It contains 55 items and
approximately takes 15-20 minutes to complete. The purpose is to inquire about
your experiences with your tutor.

Demographic Questions
Please circle the correct answer for questions 1 to 5.

1. I am ____________________ Male
Female

2. My mode of study is ___________________ Full-time

Part-time

3. Number of Blended Learning or fully online courses at university that I have

completed prior to enrolling in this course is __________________

0 1 to 4 5 to 8 9 to 12 13 to 16
More than 16

40
 4. My expected grade in this course is _____________________

A B C D

5. This course is compulsory for my major _________ Yes

No

6. I am from the Faculty of _____________________________________ (Fill name

of Faculty)

This section is about your LMS online discussion between you and your tutor
(instructor). Please indicate your level of agreement with an ‘X’ on each question
from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 to 6 ) considering this course you just
completed.

No. Questions on Teaching Presence

Disagree
disagree

disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Slightly

Slightly

Agree
agree

agree
TP1 The instructor clearly communicated
important course topics.
TP2 The instructor clearly communicated
important course goals.
TP3 The instructor provided clear instructions
on how to participate in course learning
activities.
TP4 The instructor clearly communicated
important due dates/time frames for
learning activities
TP5 The instructor was helpful in identifying
areas of agreement and disagreement on
course topics that helped me to learn.
TP6 The instructor was helpful in guiding the
class towards understanding course topics
in a way that helped me clarify my
thinking.
TP7 The instructor helped to keep course
participants engaged and participating in
productive dialogue.
TP8 The instructor helped keep the course
participants on task in a way that helped

41
 me to learn.
TP9 The instructor encouraged course
participants to explore new concepts in
this course.
TP10 Instructor actions reinforced the
development of a sense of community
among course participants.
TP11 The instructor helped to focus discussion
on relevant issues in a way that helped me
to learn.
TP12 The instructor provided feedback that
helped me understand my strengths and
weaknesses relative to the course’s goals
and objectives.
TP13 The instructor provided feedback in a
timely fashion.

This section is about your LMS online discussion between you and your student
peers (course participants). Please indicate your level of agreement with an ‘X’ on
each question from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 to 6 ) considering this
course you just completed.

No. Questions on Social Presence

Disagree
disagree

disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Slightly

Slightly

Agree
agree

agree
SP1 Getting to know other course
participants gave me a sense of
belonging in the course.
SP2 I was able to form distinct impressions
of some course participants.
SP3 Online or web-based communication is
an excellent medium for social
interaction.
SP4 I felt comfortable conversing through
the online medium.
SP5 I felt comfortable participating in the
course discussions.
SP6 I felt comfortable interacting with
other course participants.
SP7 I felt comfortable disagreeing with
other course participants while still
maintaining a sense of trust
SP8 I felt that my point of view was
acknowledged by other course
participants.

42
 SP9 Online discussions help me to develop
a sense of collaboration.

This section is about you and your course content. Please indicate your level of
agreement with an ‘X’ on each question from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1
to 6) considering this course you just completed.

No. Questions on Cognitive Presence

Disagree
disagree

disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Slightly

Slightly

Agree
agree

agree
CP1 Problems posed increased my interest in
course issues.
CP2 Course activities piqued my curiosity.

CP3 I felt motivated to explore content related

questions.
CP4 I utilized a variety of information sources
to explore problems posed in this course.
CP5 Brainstorming and finding relevant
information helped me resolve content
related questions.
CP6 Online discussions were valuable in
helping me appreciate different
perspectives.
CP7 Combining new information helped me
answer questions raised in course
activities
CP8 Learning activities helped me construct
explanations/solutions
CP9 Reflection on course content and
discussions helped me understand
fundamental concepts in this class.
CP10 I can describe ways to test and apply the
knowledge created in this course.

CP11 I have developed solutions to course

problems that can be applied in practice.

CP12 I can apply the knowledge created in this

course to my work or other non-class
related activities.

This section is about your overall course satisfaction with the Blended Learning

43
course. Please indicate your level of agreement with an ‘X’ on each question from
strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 to 6) considering this course you just
completed.

No. Questions on Course Satisfaction

Disagree
disagree

disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Slightly

Slightly

Agree
agree

agree
CS1 I feel this online class experience has
helped improve my written
communication skills.
CS2 I was able to get individualized attention
from my instructor when needed.
CS3 Although I could not see the instructor in
this class, I felt his/her presence.
CS4 This course created a sense of community
among students
CS5 I am very confident in my abilities to use
computers

CS6 Most difficulties I encounter when using

computers, I can deal with.

CS7 I am very satisfied with this Blended

Learning course.
CS8 I would like to take another Blended
Learning course.
CS9 This Blended learning course did not meet
my learning needs.
CS10 I would recommend this course to others.

CS11 I learned as much in this Blended Learning

course as compared to a face-to-face
course.
CS12 I feel Blended Learning courses are as
effective as face-to-face courses.

Open Ended Questions

1. What factors contributed to your satisfaction in Blended Learning?

2. What factors contributed to your dissatisfaction with Blended Learning?

44
3. What would you recommend to improving learning on Blended Learning courses?

Thank you. The survey is now completed.

Your anonymous feedback is recorded.

45
 APPENDIX B

Reliability Statistics

Scale: Social Presence

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.799 .804 9

Scale: Teaching Presence

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.852 .860 13

Scale: Cognitive Presence

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.808 .809 12

Scale: Course Satisfaction

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.749 .762 12

Teaching Presence

46
 Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Item Correlation Correlation Deleted
Deleted Deleted
The instructor clearly communicated
59.43 38.737 .543 .769 .839
important course topics
The instructor clearly communicated
59.57 38.116 .637 .769 .834
important course goals
The instructor provided clear
59.43 39.013 .593 .827 .837
instrutions on how to participate in
course learning activities
The instructor clearly communicated
59.40 39.766 .502 .786 .842
due dates / time frames for learning
activities
The instructor was helpful in identifying
59.83 38.902 .482 .596 .843
areas of agreement and disagreement
on course topics that helped me to
learn
The instructor was helpful in guiding
59.57 40.254 .475 .731 .844
the class towards understanding
course topics in away that helped me
clarify my thinking
The instructor helped to keep course
60.13 36.740 .600 .706 .835
participants engaged and participating
in productive dialogue
The instructor helped keep the course
59.87 40.257 .614 .536 .839
participants on task in a way that
helped me to learn
The instructor encouraged course
59.73 41.720 .291 .587 .853
participants to explore new concepts in
this course.
Instructor actions reinforced the
60.17 39.385 .346 .784 .854
development of a sense of community
among course participants
The instructor helped to focus
59.83 39.247 .510 .773 .841
discussion on relevant issues in a way
that helped me to learn.
The instructor provided feedback that
60.40 37.283 .494 .650 .844
helped me understand my strengths
and weaknesses relative to the
course’s goals and objectives.
The instructor provided feedback in a
60.63 34.102 .678 .704 .829
timely fashion.

Social Presence

47
 Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
Getting to know other course
38.80 30.441 .339 .374 .797
participants gave me a sense of
belonging in the course.
I was able to form distinct impressions
38.87 33.499 .013 .303 .846
of some course participants
Online or web-based communication is
38.60 28.593 .527 .362 .774
an excellent medium for social
interaction.
I felt comfortable conversing through
38.53 29.775 .479 .397 .781
the online medium.
I felt comfortable participating in the
38.60 25.283 .821 .777 .732
course discussions.
I felt comfortable interacting with other
38.67 23.816 .769 .757 .733
course participants.
I felt comfortable disagreeing with
39.03 26.240 .660 .609 .754
other course participants while still
maintaining a sense of trust
I felt that my point of view was
39.17 28.144 .501 .429 .777
acknowledged by other course
participants.
Online discussions help me to develop
38.27 30.961 .443 .343 .787
a sense of collaboration.

Cognitive Presence
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Item Correlation Correlation Deleted
Deleted Deleted
Problems posed increased my interest
55.57 21.909 .298 .494 .812
in course issues.
Course activities piqued my curiosity.
55.47 20.395 .540 .714 .785
I felt motivated to explore content
55.23 21.495 .488 .663 .791
related questions.
I utilized a variety of information
54.87 21.154 .565 .450 .784
sources to explore problems posed in
this course.
Brainstorming and finding relevant
54.70 23.114 .327 .469 .804
information helped me resolve content
related questions.

48
Online discussions were valuable in
54.70 21.803 .467 .587 .793
helping me appreciate different
perspectives
Combining new information helped me
54.70 22.631 .420 .612 .797
answer questions raised in course
activities
Learning activities helped me construct
54.97 22.861 .355 .377 .802
explanations/solutions
Reflection on course content and
55.07 21.720 .429 .458 .796
discussions helped me understand
fundamental concepts in this class.
I can describe ways to test and apply
55.43 20.599 .517 .693 .788
the knowledge created in this course.
I have developed solutions to course
55.80 21.476 .417 .712 .798
problems that can be applied in
practice.
I can apply the knowledge created in
54.97 19.620 .664 .757 .772
this course to my work or other non-
class related activities.

Course Satisfaction
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
Item Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted
I feel this online class experience has
49.47 28.947 .528 .696 .714
helped improve my written
communication skills.

I was able to get individualized

49.97 27.895 .449 .533 .724
attention from my instructor when
needed.
Although I could not see the instructor
50.83 25.799 .545 .611 .708
in this class, I felt his/her presence.

This course created a sense of

49.80 31.407 .342 .426 .736
community among students

I am very confident in my abilities to

49.33 30.851 .422 .514 .729
use computers

Most difficulties I encounter when

49.67 31.126 .316 .481 .739
using computers, I can deal with.

I am very satisfied with this Blended

49.50 29.638 .645 .745 .710
Learning course.

49
I would like to take another Blended
49.37 29.826 .655 .773 .710
Learning course.

This Blended learning course did not

52.33 38.230 -.381 .370 .800
meet my learning needs.
I would recommend this course to
49.30 31.734 .518 .638 .728
others.
I learned as much in this Blended
50.87 28.464 .408 .468 .730
Learning course as compared to a
face-to-face course

I feel Blended Learning courses are as

50.17 28.557 .404 .474 .730
effective as face-to-face courses.

50