Improving Community of Inquiry-based Asynchronous Online Discussion through Improving Conceptual Knowledge by Information-Organizing Preparatory Activity with Kit-Build Concept Mapping
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.4754Keywords:
community of inquiry, online discussion, conceptual knowledge, information organizing activity, kit-build concept map, summaryAbstract
Online discussion based on the community of inquiry (CoI) framework has received considerable popularity due to its potential benefits for enhancing problem solving skills and achieving deep understanding in the long term. However, it is challenging to make learners actively conduct a discussion using typical environments (e.g., asynchronous online forum). Information-organizing activity (IOA) has been proposed as one of the preparatory activities for preparing learners to actively conduct a discussion. Compared to the typical structured summary writing (SW), kit-build concept mapping (KBCM) has been proposed in past studies as an alternative IOA with the potential of fostering more cognitive presence and higher-level inquiry messages. However, such potentials were yet to be confirmed by a comparative study with a balanced sample size. Additionally, conceptual knowledge was hypothesized as influential in affecting learners’ inquiry. This follow-up study aims to confirm the potentials of KBCM as an alternative IOA for achieving better discussion. Moreover, this study contributes to investigating the relationship between conceptual knowledge and inquiry stages performed by learners to explain the effect of KBCM. By analyzing the discussion transcripts of 87 undergraduate computer science students from a public university who engaged in CoI-based discussions on linear algebra, this study found further evidence that KBCM is effective for fostering exploration, the evidence that a higher conceptual knowledge level after KBCM contributed to more exploration, and a tendency to transition between exploration and integration among KBCM learners.
References
Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Baroody, A. J., & Bartels, B. H. (2000). Using concept maps to link mathematical ideas. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(9), 604–609. http://cunycci.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/81999935/concept%20maps.pdf
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.812533
Bissessar, C., Black, D., & Boolaky, M. (2020). International online graduate students’ perceptions of CoI. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 23(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2020-0005
Braithwaite, D. W., & Sprague, L. (2021). Conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognition in routine and nonroutine problem solving. Cognitive Science, 45(10). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13048
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Chuenchaichon, Y. (2022). The problems of summary writing encountered by thai efl students: a case study of the fourth year english major students at Naresuan University. English Language Teaching, 15(6), 15. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n6p15
Colosimo, A., & Fitzgibbons, M. (2012). Teaching, designing, and organizing: Concept mapping for librarians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v7i1.1800
Cracolice, M. S., Deming, J. C., & Ehlert, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving: A cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(6), 873. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p873
Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 34(4), 344–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without Maths for Psychology. Pearson Education.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary Street®: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.2190/DH8F-QJWM-J457-FQVB
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000224743
Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (2019). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Online Learning, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i1.1737
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 113–128).
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Gasmi, A. A. (2022). Through the lens of students: How online discussion forums affect students’ learning. International Journal of Technology in Education, 5(4), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.291
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge.
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Hou, H.-T., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2009). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem-solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.006
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lee, S.-M. (2014). The relationships between higher order thinking skills, cognitive density, and social presence in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.12.002
Lenhard, W., Baier, H., Endlich, D., Schneider, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2013). Rethinking strategy instruction: direct reading strategy instruction versus computer‐based guided practice. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01505.x
Lipman, M. (2013). Thinking in education (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Liu, C.-J., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59(2), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.018
Marquart, C. L., Swiecki, Z., Collier, W., Eagan, B., Woodward, R., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). rENA: Epistemic Network Analysis. https://cran.rstudio.com/web/packages/rENA/
Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2018). Load reduction instruction: Exploring a framework that assesses explicit instruction through to independent learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.018
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00129-X
Meyer, K. A. (2019). Face-to-Face Versus Threaded Discussions: The Role of Time and Higher-Order Thinking. Online Learning, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845
Montpetit-Tourangeau, K., Dyer, J.-O., Hudon, A., Windsor, M., Charlin, B., Mamede, S., & van Gog, T. (2017). Fostering clinical reasoning in physiotherapy: comparing the effects of concept map study and concept map completion after example study in novice and advanced learners. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1076-z
Moore, R. L., & Miller, C. N. (2022). Fostering cognitive presence in online courses: A systematic review (2008-2020). Online Learning, 26(1), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.3071
Neubert, K., & Brunner, E. (2007). A studentized permutation test for the non-parametric Behrens–Fisher problem. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 5(10), 5192-5204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.05.024
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377984
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. https://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.bck-11-01-06.htm
Olesova, L., Sadaf, A., Kumar, S., Ozogul, G., Zhu, M., Moore, R. L., Miller, C., & Phillips, T. M. (2022). Cognitive presence in online courses: Design and facilitation of collaborative learning. In M. Simonson & D. Seepersaud (Eds.), 2022 AECT Convention Proceedings Vol. 2: Practice of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 684–693). https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings22/2022i/22_23.pdf
Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119–140. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/adeb2944-20ed-4f3f-ba39-5cc72a8d0a45/content
Persky, A. M., & Robinson, J. D. (2017). Moving from novice to expertise and its implications for instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(9), 6065. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6065
Pilegard, C., & Fiorella, L. (2016). Helping students help themselves: Generative learning strategies improve middle school students’ self-regulation in a cognitive tutor. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 121–126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.020
Popescu, E., & Badea, G. (2020). Exploring a community of inquiry supported by a social media-based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 61–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26921134
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_3
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175
Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Lins, R. D., & Gǎsević, D. (2019). A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.05.001
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474/875
Saadatmand, M., Uhlin, L., Hedberg, M., Åbjörnsson, L., & Kvarnström, M. (2017). Examining learners’ interaction in an open online course through the community of inquiry framework. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0004
Sadaf, A., Wu, T., & Martin, F. (2021). Cognitive presence in online learning: A systematic review of empirical research from 2000 to 2019. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100050
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry , 22(2), 119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1180029
Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3
Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.002
Shokrpour, N., Sadeghi, A., & Seddigh, F. (2013). The effect of summary writing as a critical reading strategy on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v3i2.2644
Siebert-Evenstone, A. L., Arastoopour Irgens, G., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Williamson Shaffer, D. (2017). In search of conversational grain size: Modeling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.43.7
Spirgel, A. S., & Delaney, P. F. (2016). Does writing summaries improve memory for text? Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9290-2
Sung, Y.-T., Liao, C.-N., Chang, T.-H., Chen, C.-L., & Chang, K.-E. (2016). The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-based technique. Computers & Education, 95, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.003
Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H., & Mokhtar, M. (2012). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in problem solving. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.671
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning. In Payne, C. R. (eds.), Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education (pp. 43–57). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.2190/W4G6-HY52-57P1-PPNE
Tan, Y., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Shaffer, D. (2024). Epistemic network analysis and ordered network analysis in learning analytics. In Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S. (eds) Learning Analytics Methods and Tutorials. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54464-4_18
Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. del C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). Trends in educational research about e-Learning: A systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability, 12(12), 5153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153
Varoglu, L., Yilmaz, A., & Sen, S. (2023). Effect of 5E learning cycle assisted with concept maps on conceptual understanding. Pedagogical Research, 8(3), em0161. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/13167
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001
Wang, H., & Yu, G. (2024). To copy verbatim, paraphrase or summarize – listeners’ methods of discourse representation while recalling academic lectures. Applied Linguistics Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0031
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4
Williams, C. G. (1998). Using Concept Maps to Assess Conceptual Knowledge of Function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 414. https://doi.org/10.2307/749858
Yang, X., Li, Y., Tan, C.-H., & Teo, H.-H. (2007). Students’ participation intention in an online discussion forum: Why is computer-mediated interaction attractive? Information & Management, 44(5), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.04.003
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lintang Matahari Hasani, Kasiyah Junus, Lia Sadita, Ayano Ohsaki, Tsukasa Hirashima, Yusuke Hayashi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
