IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

A Comprehensive Community of Inquiry Framework for Exploring
Technology Enhanced Language Learning
Irum Alvi
Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, India

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Abstract
The use of technology for second language (L2) acquisition has become ubiquitous, but little
thought has been given to the factors that impact the language learning experience. This study
aims to use the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to propose and validate a morecomprehensive model for investigating the influence of presence on learners’ L2 learning
experience using Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL). Data were collected froma sample of language learners (n = 129) studying in the State of Rajasthan, India using an equestionnaire. To scrutinize the effect of various forms of presence, descriptive and inferential
analyses were conducted. The findings suggest strong, positive, and statistically significant
associations exist between the original CoI elements (teaching presence, cognitive presence
and social presence), the newly added elements (learning presence, emotional presence, andtechnological presence), and learning experience. These results confirm the idea that presence
can hinder and/or enhance L2 learning experiences. No association was found between
technical barriers and learning experience. The findings have theoretical and practical
implications. The results suggest the value of expanding the CoI framework, scrutinizing thelearners’ experience, analyzing the influence of presence, and enriching the application of thetechnology for language learning. Such results may ensure TELL courses are designed as
vigorous learning environs which facilitate language acquisition.
Keywords: community of inquiry, learning experience, teaching, cognitive and social presence,learning, emotional and technological presence

72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant influence on the learning experiences of learners(Yu et al., 2022). During this turbulent time, Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL)
became the only means of learning. TELL refers to a teaching methodology, which requires
electronic resources (e-resources) for promoting teaching and learning of a second language(L2). TELL deals with the manner in which technology affects the instruction and acquisitionof a L2. Technology has been useful in enhancing input quality, authenticating communication,and giving quick and pertinent feedback, for the development of all language abilities,
including listening, writing, reading, speaking, grammar, and vocabulary. The adoption oftechnology for learning assists learners in acquiring new knowledge and skills (Wood &Shirazi, 2020); it also opens new vistas for research (Rasheed et al., 2020). Instead of the mostfrequent language learning approaches used in higher education (e.g., face-to-face,
blended/hybrid, flipped), TELL has emerged as one of the most important means of language
learning in India. This change has been accompanied with a shift from teacher-centered tolearner-centered approaches to learning, as learners become involuntarily dependent ontechnology (Dhawan, 2020) as part of the new normal (Zhou et al., 2022). Previous researchlooked into how learners accepted diverse forms of technologies including social networking
tools (Alvi, 2021a) such as WhatsApp (Kaur et al, 2021), learning management systems(Camilleri & Camilleri, 2021), artificial intelligence for integrated learning (Mageira et al.,2022), and feedback (Alvi, 2021b). Based on these studies, learners’ perceptions andacceptances emerged as central factors in shaping their learning experience (LE), in atechnology-supported learning environment (Huang & Liaw, 2018).
Peirce and Dewey introduced the concept of community of inquiry (CoI) and linked it to theinquiry stage of knowledge acquisition describing the essential elements of a successful
learning experience (Garrison, 2017) in higher education. Several researchers have used the
CoI model based on social constructivism theory to examine LE (Junus et al., 2022; Yu & Li,2022). The CoI model is broadly defined as a learning procedure or setting where learners learn
together in an environment where they can make enquiries to overcome complicated problems
or learn new information. According to social constructivism, all knowledge is created throughlanguage use and social interaction, making it a shared rather than a private experience. Social
constructivism explains how people learn and gain information. Moreover, the goal of an
educational community is to create a setting where learners participate together to better grasp
or experience the required skills.
The current study uses the CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000) to investigate factors
influencing learning English as a L2. CoI offers a conceptual model for e-learning experiences.
The original model consists of three main constructs: social presence (SP), teaching presence(TP), and cognitive presence (CP) (Kozan & Caskurlu, 2018). Initially, utilized to investigate
how e-forums produce intellectual and social community, the CoI framework has beensuccessfully used for e-learning/blended learning (Kilis & Yıldırım, 2018). Despite its
strengths, numerous studies suggest the CoI framework can be enhanced by adding newpresences to account for important factors of effective e-learning (Cleveland-Innes &Campbell, 2012; Kozan & Caskurlu, 2018). The present study posits that the addition of newpresences, namely learning presence, emotional presence, and technological presence to the
CoI framework, may provide more insight into how students perceive their learning
experiences in L2 classrooms. Because research on the CoI framework and its application
remain relatively recent, there are no in-depth studies investigating them in the context ofTELL, particularly in the Indian context. To address this gap in research, this study aims toinvestigate the influence of presence on learners’ L2 learning experience using TELL. The

73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

study addresses two research questions: 1) What factors impact the TELL learning experiencein India? And 2) What level of presence influences the TELL experience?
The main objective of this research is to look into learners’ LE with two main objectives. The
main goal is to create a comprehensive and inclusive version of the CoI framework to better
understand the factors impacting LE in the context of TELL in India. The second goal is toexperimentally and analytically validate the proposed CoI based framework. As such, thepresent study extends and validates the modified model using raw data and empirical tests inthe context of TELL. As illustrated in Figure 1, the study modifies and extends the CoI model
for assessing the TELL of language learners in India. In short, the study’s rationale is to
scrutinize language learners’ LE and to offer an all-inclusive framework for investigating andenhancing their experiences. The rest of the paper discusses of the CoI framework, in thecontext of L2, which provides a solid, descriptive theoretical foundation. Then, it proposes a
modified model grounded on the existing CoI model, which investigates the critical elements
for an effective e-learning experience based on social constructivism (Dewey, 1959). Finally,
it validates the model using data collected from language learners.
Figure 1
Conceptual Model Based on an Extended CoI Framework

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
Language learning is closely connected to language use. It develops through social interaction,and is a social process which requires sustained communication. TELL provides learners withthe opportunity to engage in several ways using diverse online language learning tools. The
CoI framework, which includes three elements called presences, has been successfully used
for investigating the use and implementation of technology for L2 learning (Wang et al., 2022).
The term presence refers to a social situation that arises from interactions between students andteachers (Picciano, 2017). This feeling of presence is needed for enhancing language learners’
performance and language acquisition. Interactive environments enabled by modern
technologies are beneficial for L2 learning. Within an epistemic engagement pedagogicalapproach, the CoI model may be regarded as an exemplary model to understand e-learning

74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

(Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). This is particularly true for integrated, team-based e-learning(Parrish et al., 2021). The CoI model captures not only the most important aspects of learning(teaching, cognitive, and social), but also the dynamics of the e-learning environment (Garrison
et al., 2010). As such, many academics have endorsed the CoI framework (Wang et al., 2022),
while others have pointed out its limitations by criticizing it for lacking representation ofdiverse educational areas (Annand, 2019). Prior research has also called for more empiricalresearch to test the efficacy, scalability, and feasibility of CoI in different contexts (Annand,2019). As such, the current study aims to fill this research gap.
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence (CP) denotes the ability of learners to confirm/construct significance basedon continued consideration and reflection (Garrison et al., 2001). Researchers haveconcentrated extensively on socio-cognitive assessments of e-learning for collaborativeinteraction (Park & Shea 2020). Much of this research has focused on CP, considering it asignificant measure of the quality of learner experience as it entails genuine methodologies
grounded on constructing understanding in an e-environment (Garrison et al., 2017). CP
consists of four phases: triggering events, resolution, exploration, and integration. Triggering
events refer to tasks, inquiries, or stimuli, which encourage a sense of mistrust, wonder,
bewilderment, and uncertainty in learners. Such experiences enhance the need for inquiry
because it motivates the learner to address their cognitive conflict. Triggering events encouragelearners to use their inductive reasoning to overcome the lack of existing awareness andcomprehend any new information, which leads to resolution. The third phase called explorationrefers to learners’ efforts to overcome their cognitive dissonance by reconstructing knowledge
and by searching for new information. In these phases, learners discuss facts and information
among themselves, share ideas and recommendations, and prior experiences, and investigate
concepts. Integration is the final phase wherein learners connect the material gathered in theearlier stages to reach tentative solutions or reasons. This stage is crucial for learners to build
higher-order thinking skills (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Based on the extant literature on CP,
it can be argued that it has a significant effect on the learners. Thus, the first hypothesis for thisstudy (H1) stated that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between CP and
LE among language learners.
Teaching Presence
Teaching presence (TP) refers to the design, expedition, and direction of social and cognitive
process for realizing meaningful academic learning. Teaching presence begins with curriculum
and course planning and design. It then continues throughout the delivery of the content of thecourse/program to promote active learning through the use of appropriate teaching tactics andassessments. Design and organization, nurturing conversation, and uninterrupted instruction
influence the learner experience. Organization and design are related to course preparation andscheme, assimilating assessment, exercises, quizzes, and assignments, along with theadministrative aspects of education. Facilitating discourse, the second category, tries to retain
learner interest, motivation, and participation in an active learning environment. It takes control
of connecting material to occasions wherein learners interact and socialize. Direct instruction
is another aspect of TP. According to Anderson et al. (2001), direct instruction occurs when
the teacher provides scholarly and academic leadership. Based on the above literature, thestudy’s second hypothesis (H2) postulated that there is a statistically significant positive
relationship between TP and LE among language learners.

75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Social PresenceSocial presence (SP) is an important element in e-learning. It refers to the learners’ ability topresent their ideas publicly and to interact in their learning environment by building interpersonal relationships and expressing their personalities (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). SP isconnected with the use of technology for learning purposes and it controls how social
interactions unfold in online environments (Song & Yuan, 2015). It also affects learning
outcomes. It is a crucial affective component as well as an important construct influencing theintensity of communication and efficacy of learning in e-learning (Mykota, 2017). It is
identified as a system of personal relationships engrained in groups by roles andresponsibilities, principles and expectations, and mind-sets and requirements (Annand, 2011).
In workgroups, it is a system of personal relations and is linked to sociability and space. The
study’s third hypothesis (H3) stated that there is a statistically significant positive relationshipbetween SP and LE among language learners.
Learning Presence
Learning presence (LP) is a cyclical process, wherein the learner plans for a language learning
activity, monitors his performance, and reflects upon the consequences. The cycle recurs as thelearner adjusts and prepares for the next activity. Recent studies propose the inclusion of LP as
the fourth element in the CoI framework as a way to denote learner self-regulation (Wertz,
2022). Researchers maintain extant studies on self-regulation offer a solid ground for the
inclusion of LP for enhanced appreciation of the LE (Huang et al., 2019). Hunag et al. (2019)
proposed that factors such as behavioral, cognitive, and motivational concepts and self-efficacy
encourage e-learner experience. In this context, self-efficacy is regarded as a subjective
estimate of the ability to learn. It accentuates the boundaries between cognition and motivation,
being a personal judgment of learners’ competence level in performing tasks/acts (Shea &Bidjerano, 2010). Relatedly, self-regulation refers to perseverance and the aptitude forconfronting setbacks in the completion of tasks about learning (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). LP
was utilized to evaluate learners’ opinions of their efficacy and effort, giving e-learning a more
"self-directed" impression; Self-efficacy and self-regulation were added as additional scales
for this purpose (Wertz, 2022). Self-regulation denotes the extent to which learners feel they
are motivationally, metacognitively, and psychologically dynamic contributors to the learning
process (Zimmerman, 2008). To effectively complete language-related team projects, learners
self-regulate their activities, divide duties, manage time, and set goals. As such, LP plays asignificant part in enhancing the LE of learners using TELL. Thus, this study’s fourth
hypothesis (H4) stated that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between LP
and LE among language learners.
Emotional Presence
Following an extensive review of the literature on the experiences of learners, emotionalpresence (EP) was added to the CoI framework's conceptual aspects. According to ClevelandInnes and Campbell (2012), emotion is experienced by learners as a distinct presence. This
presence refers to much more than just an affective response to social presence as it enhances
the overall e-learning experience. EP denotes the external manifestation of feeling, affect, andsentiment in a CoI framework as learners communicate and interrelate with e-learning tools,
content, peers, and teacher (Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012). Emotion remains central tolearning as it offers attention, interest, motivation, and social connection. When emotions are
not properly regulated, learners may fail to express, assess, or modulate their approach, thus

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

impeding other cognitive experiences causing emotional hijacking (Cavanagh, 2016). Basedon this information, the study’s fifth hypothesis (H5) stated that there is a statisticallysignificant positive relationship between EP and LE among the language learners.
Technological Presence
The present research adds one more presence to the CoI framework: technological presence(TechP). Technology is an essential influence in scientific and social progress. This concept
implies that technology has both potentiality and actuality. In terms of potentiality, technology
provides potential actions through which learners may realize specific actions and, more
importantly, themselves. It is through TechP that learners may become familiar with theirprospects to be in, and act in, the technology enhanced environment. As such, instead of
focusing only on the actual use of technology, its influence must be explored through the notionof TechP. TechP “offers us opportunities, possibilities, and reveals to us potential actions,potential forms of life, and potential ways of relating to our social and physical surroundings”(Kiran, 2012, p. 93). TechP requires competence/self-efficacy, which is imperative for aneffective learning environment based on technology. It is similar to Bigné et al.’s (2019) Digital
Competence Framework.
In the present study, TechP denotes language learners’ perceptions of their ability to use
technology-related sites and tools to perform e-learning activities and tasks to attain desiredlearning outcomes. Researchers have found that technical knowledge has a strong beneficial
impact on adoption and use of technology (Celik & Yesilyurt, 2013). TechP may be used as anindicator of an individual's intent to use technology (Kiran, 2012). Language learners need tobe digitally competent for the completion of learning tasks and activities; as such, they alsoneed to possess information and data literacy, digital content comprehension, and problemsolving. Learners with higher technological knowledge are more likely to be persistent, as they
do not give up easily and try to attain their language learning objectives both inside theclassroom and beyond (Lai, 2013). Language learners’ TechP will be echoed in theirtechnological skills while performing technology-based tasks (Mew & Honey, 2010), and it
may significantly influence their intent to utilize e-learning facilities and applications. Thus,
TechP may indicate learners’ opinions of technology as beneficial and simple to use, andconsequently their desire to utilize it for self-directed learning (Lai, 2013). Based on thisliterature, the study’s sixth hypothesis (H6) stated that there is a statistically significant positive
relationship between TechP and LE among language learners.
Technical Barriers
Researchers regard technical issues to be critical for e-learning (Kauffman, 2015). Technicalissues and problems have been identified as technical barriers (TB). Internal barriers include
things like attitudes and beliefs, while external barriers include time, technical and institutional
support, and infrastructure. The lack of these elements as well as want of suitablecommunication strategies for their implementation has been identified as a reason for poor
technology implementations (Alvi, 2022). Therefore, TB may refer to any existing belief that
restrains usage intentions and promotes rejection of technology (Cenfetelli & Schwarz, 2011).
Learners' perceived technological intricacy, which refers to the quality/state of being complex
or being problematic/difficult to use, can also be highlighted as a barrier (Ali et al., 2018).
Thus, while technology might help students learn more effectively, it can be a hindrance insome cases (Lane, 2019). Therefore, the study’s seventh hypothesis (H7) stated that there is astatistically significant positive relationship between TB and LE among language learners.

77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Research Methodology
Instrument Design
To collect information from language learners, an e-questionnaire was drafted. This online
questionnaire was separated into two sections. The first section collected student demographic
information such as gender, age, and the standard /class in which the learners were enrolled.
The second section of the e-questionnaire consisted of 59 items for assessing and quantifying
forms of presence. The CoI measurement scale (TP, CP, and SP) was based on studies by
Arbaugh (2008) and Swan et al. (2008). The existing scale was extended by adding five new
constructs based on existing literature, namely LP (Wei et al. 2020), TechP (Tetri & Juujärvi,2022), TB (Akhter et al., 2022), EP (Cavanagh, 2016), and LE (Woodcock et al., 2015). All of
the items were adapted, adopted and modified for the current study. The items were based ona five-point Likert-scale where 1 indicated “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree”.
Participants and Research Design
The study’s population included learners enrolled in language learning courses during the2021–2022 academic year. The potential participants were all undergraduate students, studyingin the first semester at an institute in Rajasthan, India. They had been using technology for
language acquisition for at least six months. Data was collected from learners after seeking
approval for the study from the ethics committee for the study of human subjects. As the study's
research methodology is cross-sectional, a quantitative technique using an e-questionnaire was
employed to obtain responses from language learners.
Statistical software (G*power 3.1.9) was used to calculate an adequate sample size (Faul et al.,2007) for correlation analysis. The following settings were utilized for a two-tailed test for
medium effect size: α err prob = 0.05, power (1-β err prob) = 0.80 and correlation ρ H1 value= 0.3. As per the results, the minimal sample size for the investigation was 84 with an error
probability of 0.05 and a confidence level of 80 percent. Based on these findings, the sample
size of 129 was considered sufficient for the present study. The sample was chosen using arandom sampling procedure, which ensured all learners in the population had an equal chanceof being selected. The sample comprised of approximately 70% males and 30% females. The
average age was 18 (SD = 1.87). The participants came from diverse backgrounds with nearly
60% from urban parts of Rajasthan and 40% from rural regions.
Analysis of Data
Data analysis used descriptive statistics to calculate frequency, distribution, percentage, mean,and standard deviation. Statistical analyses were carried out for verifying scale and instrument
reliability. Validity of the instrument was checked by considering both the rationality andaccuracy of each question’s wording (how well and accurately it conveys the intended
message) and the validity of the responses it elicits (how well it captures respondents’ trueideas). The study used well-proven instruments. Moreover, a pilot study was conducted using
20 respondents to test the research instrument. The accuracy of the items was checked and a
few minor changes were made to ensure the accuracy and validity of the instrument based on
feedback received from the respondents. Finally, inferential statistics were used for hypotheses
testing.

78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Results
The first step in the process was to use Cronbach's alpha (CA) to measure the instrument
reliability. The total reliability of the instrument was above 0.90, which indicated the scale
used had excellent overall reliability. The values of CA for TP, CP, SP, EP, LP, TechP, TB,
and LE are presented in Table 1. The results affirm the constructs were reliable as all CA
values’ were above 0.83. Next, the study sought to scrutinize the level of TP, CP, SP, LP, EP,
TechP, and TB among language learners in India. The mean score, called the average score,
was obtained by totaling the sum of the data sets divided by the number of items for eachconstruct. As shown in Table 1, the mean scores ranged from the lowest for TB (2.97) to thehighest for TP (4.47). The standard deviation, Std.D, which refers to the average amount ofvariability in the dataset, was also calculated. Next, skewness, which denotes the degree ofimbalance in the frequency distribution, and kurtosis, which denotes the degree of tailed-nessin the frequency distribution, were observed. The values for kurtosis and asymmetry ranged
between -2/+2 which are taken as satisfactory (George & Mallery, 2010). As seen, these values
ranged from fairly symmetrical for TB (between -0.5 and 0.5) to moderately skewed (0.5 and1/-0.5 and -1) for most of the constructs, to highly skewed (greater than -1) for LP. Means,standard error, standard deviations, and Cas for the constructs are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1Means, Standard Error, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alphas for the Constructs

Teaching PresenceSocial Presence
Cognitive Presence
Learning Presence
Emotional Presence
Technological Presence
Technical Barriers
Learning Experience

CA
0.93
0.89
0.89
0.84
0.83
0.93
0.84
0.88

Mean
4.47
4.10
4.31
4.44
4.33
4.30
2.97
4.38

Std. Error
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.05

SD
0.53
0.68
0.58
0.64
0.61
0.59
1.38
0.57

Skewness
-0.84
-0.50
-0.59
-1.02
-0.67
-0.61
-0.01
-0.76

Kurtosis
0.01
-0.47
-0.48
0.13
0.20
-0.39
-1.39
0.27

Table 2 reports the item-level means, errors, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis. The
mean for items ranged from 2.81 for TB6 to 4.53 for TP10.
Table 2Item-Level Means, Errors, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis
Construct

Teaching Presence
(TP)

Item
TP1
TP2
TP3
TP4
TP5
TP6
TP7
TP8
TP9
TP10

Mean
4.52
4.50
4.49
4.47
4.42
4.44
4.49
4.40
4.39
4.53

Std. Error
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06

79

SD
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.65
0.68
0.74
0.70
0.69
0.78
0.69

Skewness
-1.14
-0.90
-0.87
-0.82
-0.91
-1.04
-1.15
-0.85
-1.10
-1.73

Kurtosis
1.17
-0.24
-0.28
-0.38
0.27
0.05
0.56
0.13
0.49
4.54

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Social Presence (SP)Cognitive Presence(CP)

Learning Presence(LP)
Emotional Presence(EP)

Technological
Presence(TechP)Technical
Barriers(TB)

Learning Experience
(LE)

TP11
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
SP6
SP7
SP8
SP9
CP1
CP2
CP3
CP4
CP5
CP6
CP7
CP8
CP9
CP10
CP11
CP12
LP1
LP2
LP3
EP1
EP2
EP3
TP1
TP2
TP3
TP4
TP5
TP6
TP7
TP8
TP9
TP10
TB1
TB2
TB3
TB4
TB5
TB6
LE1
LE2
LE3
LE4

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

4.50
4.23
4.31
4.26
3.93
3.97
4.06
3.95
4.12
4.07
4.26
4.36
4.40
4.26
4.37
4.31
4.37
4.23
4.33
4.24
4.28
4.32
4.46
4.46
4.42
4.41
4.30
4.28
4.40
4.33
4.32
4.34
4.40
4.19
4.16
4.35
4.30
4.21
3.09
2.95
2.88
3.09
3.03
2.81
4.41
4.44
4.40
4.42

0.06
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06

80

0.68
0.77
0.73
0.87
1.16
1.10
1.05
0.88
0.79
0.91
0.79
0.82
0.72
0.82
0.75
0.76
0.73
0.78
0.76
0.73
0.79
0.68
0.74
0.76
0.73
0.65
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.67
0.81
0.84
0.68
0.81
0.83
1.47
1.50
1.42
1.48
1.48
1.56
0.61
0.67
0.70
0.68

-1.18
-0.52
-0.55
-1.18
-1.05
-1.07
-0.95
-0.53
-0.89
-0.96
-0.70
-1.53
-0.89
-0.87
-0.96
-0.92
-0.95
-0.84
-1.27
-0.40
-0.83
-0.65
-1.09
-1.53
-0.96
-0.64
-0.66
-0.86
-1.28
-0.55
-0.50
-0.49
-0.68
-0.55
-0.56
-0.57
-1.15
-0.75
-0.12
-0.03
-0.04
-0.12
-0.05
0.24
-0.50
-0.96
-0.87
-0.75

0.79
-0.81
-0.93
1.22
0.41
0.58
0.02
-0.08
1.37
0.88
-0.42
3.17
-0.07
0.06
0.22
0.41
0.41
0.38
2.46
-1.02
-0.02
-0.06
0.13
2.85
0.01
-0.57
-0.36
0.65
2.40
-0.82
-0.79
-0.69
-0.60
-0.75
-0.71
-0.74
1.51
-0.22
-1.41
-1.46
-1.34
-1.41
-1.42
-1.50
-0.62
0.43
0.06
-0.57

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

LE5

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

4.24

0.07

0.79

-0.75

-0.12

Next, the Shapiro-Wilk multivariate normality test was conducted to assess the data's normality
assumption (Shapiro-Wilk value = 0.89). There was no normal distribution for any of thesignificant outcomes (p < 0.001), indicating that the normality assumption was violated.
Finally, the Spearman's Rank Correlation test, which is a gauge of how well variables are
related, was conducted. The strength of the link between the respondents’ perceptions and theirexperience was measured utilizing Spearman's Rho (ρ). Positive correlations are signified by apositive value in Spearman's Rho analysis, with stronger correlations being closer to one.
Negative correlations, on the other hand, are signified by a negative number, with stronger
correlations being closer to a negative one. If the result is zero, there is no correlation between
the variables. Statistical significance was also examined within each variable pairing. The ‘α’was set to 0.05, meaning the confidence level was 0.95.
Table 3
Hypotheses Testing Using Spearman's Rho
Hypotheses
H1: Teaching Presence àLE
H2: Social Presence àLE
H3: Cognitive Presence àLE
H4: Learning Presence àLE
H5: Emotional Presence àLE
H6: Technological Presence àLE
H7: Technical Barriers àLE

Spearman's rho ρ
0.67**
0.65**
0.75**
0.65**
0.70**
0.73**-0.01

p< .001< .001< .001< .001< .001< .001
0.89** p < .001

The results of the study’s hypotheses are presented in Table 3. Of the study’s seven hypotheses
framed, postulating that there should be a statistically significant positive relationship between
various presence and LE, six were validated. H1: TP and LE (ρ=0.67, p <0.001); H2: SP andLE (ρ=0.65, p <0.001); H3: CP and LE (ρ=0.75, p <0.001); H4: LP and LE (ρ=0.65, p <0.001);
H5: EP and LE (ρ=0.70, p <0.001); H6: TechP and LE (ρ = 0.73, p <0.001). These hypotheses
were accepted based on the outcome of the Spearman's correlation analysis. However, thefindings revealed no significant relationship between TB and LE. Although the relationshipbetween TB and LE was negative (as anticipated), it was not statistically significant (ρ = -0.01,
p = 0.89). Based on these results, H7 was rejected. These results are summarized in Figure 2.

81

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Figure 2
Research Model Showing Construct Means, Standard Deviations, and Associations with LE

Discussion
The current study sought to scrutinize the factors that impact LE in the context of TELL in
India. More specifically, it examined the level of TP, CP, SP, LP, EP, TechP, and TB among
Indian undergraduate language learners. Comprehending the level of these variables isimportant as they influence the LE and ensure language learning communities offer a secure,encouraging atmosphere without inhibitions for learners.
Based on descriptive statistics, the average mean obtained by totaling all items of eachconstruct, confirmed that the level ranged from lowest for TB to highest for LP. Moreover, thelevels were relatively high for all forms of presence. The findings revealed that language
learners perceive LP as the most significant presence, followed by other forms, while TB wasperceived as the least significant among the selected variables. The study also affirmed theassociations between the three original factors in the CoI framework, thereby augmenting priorstudies (Dempsey & Zhang, 2019).
Next, the study confirmed the comprehensive and inclusive proposed framework by extending
the CoI framework. Additionally, it experimentally and analytically validated the proposed
framework in the context of language acquisition. It was discovered that TP may contribute
positively to LE, implying that TP is vital for improving language learners' learning
experiences. TP denotes the significance of course content, activities, and mentorship(Caskurlu, 2018). The findings suggest that each aspect of TP, which includes course content,
activities, and mentorship, is critical for ensuring L2 learning is made easy for learners. The
results also suggest that TP contributes to the LE because language teachers play a key role intriggering learning through appropriate course conception, topic covering, and efficient
feedback and communication mechanisms (Caskurlu, 2018).
SP was found to be considerably related to LE. As such, it may aid in the development ofinteraction among the learners which further enhances their interpersonal relationships (Zhou,2016). This happens by increasing learners’ engrossment and contribution in the learning

82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

environment and collaborating with their peers for a mutual objective (Hilliard & Stewart,2019). These findings imply language learners can express discrepancies, exchange opinions,study contrasts, and acknowledge support and encouragement from peers and teachers throughtheir SP. In other words, language skills relevant to their cultures have to be acquired to enable
them to debate and defend their viewpoints. These abilities can be honed through supportive
dialogue and the creation of a positive learning environment by the teachers. For this objective,
course design and facilitation are important since they ensure learners feel more engaged inlearning and improve their critical thinking (Chang et al., 2015). In short, SP delivers
prominence to communication and collaboration (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009).
In the context of Indian students, the study discovered that among the select constructs, CP had
the strongest association with the language LE. This implies that students prefer to learn
through cognition. Language teachers may ensure CP by utilizing interactive activities basedon real or virtual scenarios in the language course. CP specifies an inquiry-learning process,comprising identifying the problem, coalescing ideas, and scrutinizing conceivable solutions.
These findings contradict the results of some prior researchers who found a weak correlation
between CP and learning (Martin et al., 2022). Since CP aids in the discovery andunderstanding of learners’ identity depending on their needs, it is important for language
learners. To improve performance, learners use their reflection on subjective experiences(subjectification) for producing action (pragmatic). This shows that students’ inherent
conscious intelligence to learn may outweigh the effect of external factors on their intellect.
Thus, TP, SP, and CP in the CoI framework emphasize the e-learning progression andconcentrate on LE. Group cohesion, collaboration, and communication play a significant role,as parts of SP (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Kreijns, 2022). In this view, the learner needs tostay cognitively involved and endeavor to learn efficiently in the social space in which theteacher plays a substantial role. The cumulative influence of all of these elements provides thelearners with an influential LE (Arbaugh et al., 2008). As such, the interrelationship between
the original three variables was investigated and the results affirmed prior research, which was
based on undergraduate and post-graduate data (Heilporn & Lakhal, 2020; Garrison, 2010;
Dempsey & Zhang, 2019).
Further, the findings indicate strong, positive, and significant associations between the newly
added constructs (LP, EP, and TechP), with the exception of TB. This suggests that students inonline language learning courses are knowledgeable in e-learning technologies, have requisite
technical abilities, and feel relaxed in e-learning environments. LP emerged as a key predictorof LE, demonstrating that it must be addressed by the teachers in the context of language
learning. Further, the learning experience needs to be made interesting and entertaining toensure learner involvement and engagement, which confirms previous studies (Wertz, 2022).
The association between LP and LE was positive and significant; the findings affirm Ma etal.’s (2017) study. The findings also confirm Lin et al.’s (2015) study indicating that LP, which
is tantamount with self-efficacy, plays an important part in CoI.
EP was found to be empirically linked with learning. It has also been found to be linked withcognition (Thomas et al., 2017). As a learning environment induces constructive or disparaging
sentiments in learners, EP may influence the quality of LE. Negative feelings can confuse
learners (Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012), and adversely influence their LE. Therefore,teachers need to be wary of the presence of any negative feelings among language learners. In
order to enhance EP, teachers may offer motivation, care, and understanding to learners (Green& Batool, 2017). Ideally, this will make them feel safe and appreciated, ensuring they also feel
connected, which may boost their confidence.

83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

TechP represents the learners’ attitude towards the use of technology and is the learners’
affective response to e-learning while demonstrating their experience related to its use. In thisstudy, TechP represented learners’ affective response to using technology for language
acquisition. It was found to be positively associated with LE. However, it must be noted that
TechP may differ according to field of study. Nevertheless, learners’ abilities to speak andunderstand English may offer them more understanding and efficiency in e-learning
environments.
To summarize, the present study empirically tested and validated the CoI framework
concerning language learners in India. It confirmed that presence contributes to LE (Caskurlu,
2018). It emphasized the multi-dimensionality of the CoI elements, and establishedfundamental relations between them using a correlational model. This study extended the CoIframework by delivering an improved framework for studying and investigating language
learners’ experiences. This was done by including four more constructs (learning presence,emotional presence, technological presence, and technical barriers). The extended andmodified framework, which depicts the many facets of the learning process that make up theLE, suggests that meaningful and substantial learning occurs when learners’ expectations
concerning all forms of presence are satisfied. Finally, the results of the study may ensure
TELL courses are designed as vigorous learning environments and communities in which
students, and teachers, exchange knowledge and views, besides ideas and experiences(Picciano, 2017).
Theoretical and Practical Recommendations
The findings of this study have a number of implications. Firstly, the study provides teachers,
administrators, and policymakers guidance on how to recognize the elements that affectlanguage learners’ perceptions and experiences. This information can be used to enhancelearner satisfaction and experience by applying the CoI framework to TELL. The proposed
extended CoI model explains how learners experience presence and the associations between
various constructs. This research has theoretical implications as it adds to the body ofknowledge about e-learning courses and learner experience. To the best of the author's
knowledge, it is the only investigation to incorporate four contextual elements (LP, EP, TechP,
and TB) into the CoI framework. The research reveals how these factors influence LE for
language learning purposes, thereby playing a critical role. It shows that CP, SP, and TP havean impact on LE, proving the validity of the CoI framework. The comprehensive CoI model isfurther extended and validated using raw data from language learners; thus, it contributes
significantly to the extant literature on LE. This work has significant theoretical implications
because the findings elucidate learners’ perceptions of utilizing CoI. The modifiedcomprehensive and inclusive model results in a more powerful illustrative model, thereby
adding to the extant studies encompassing CoI by experimentally investigating LE. It fills theresearch gap and addresses a significant area of investigation about e-learning and language
learning. However, the findings contrast with previous research, indicating that TB isn’t anobstacle in the perception of language learners in India (Pillai, 2020). Further research isneeded to address this discrepancy using larger and more varied samples, as well as moreadvanced statistical and inferential methodologies. As such, the results should not be overly
generalized.
Finally, the present research has practical implications as it reveals the significance of CP, SP,
TP, LP, EP, and TechP, for ensuring students' LE through e-learning, course gamification,interaction, and blended learning. All of these course formats combine virtual and realengagement for enhanced LE. Both SP and TP are vital, so instructors may ensure language

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

content is engaging enough for the learners and provide them with ample opportunities toengage in team activities, for promoting a more satisfying experience. Another major point
raised in this study is the importance of LP and TechP. Learners must feel satisfied and content.
They must feel joy, excitement, and playfulness and be technically competent. Instructors may
guarantee learner satisfaction by introducing more communicative activities. In the context ofa developing nation like India, instructors may pay more attention to the course design and its
delivery to cater to the needs and demands of a diverse population of language learners. These
results may also aid teachers, administrators, policymakers, and governments, as well as privateorganizations, in providing better facilities and resources for language learners in India. As
such, academics, policymakers and researchers may find the CoI framework a useful tool forfurther study of L2 learning using technology, in various contexts.
Conclusion
The present investigation makes numerous contributions to the CoI literature. The study
assessed the associations between CP, SP, LP, EP, TP, TechP, and TB. A comprehensive CoImodel incorporating seven variables in the context of language learning was proposed andvalidated. In addition, it used a different methodology by using Spearman’s rank correlation
coefficient to validate seven hypotheses about the association between these constructs and LE.
The proposed model may be useful for identifying the factors affecting learners' experiences
and may provide valuable implications and recommendations for enhancing LE for language
learners. However, the findings may be further tested using more advanced statistical andanalytical techniques, including qualitative methods such as interviews or open-ended
questions. Such methods would provide more in-depth coverage of learners’ experiences, sincelanguage learning experiences may be more suitable for qualitative methods. The instrument
also needs to be validated in other contexts using larger sample sizes and more advanced
analytical methodologies. Moreover, the generalizability of the results can’t be done without
skepticism, as the results may differ based on context or culture. Another limitation of the study
is that it is based on self-reported data which depends on the respondents’ willingness to
respond accurately. Learners may not be eager to respond accurately, which might bias theresults. Lastly, the information was collected from learners only. Future studies may focus onother stakeholders like policymakers, government officials, and teachers. To conclude, thefindings of the study have significant reference value for expanding the inquiry community's
framework, comprehending the learners’ experience, analyzing the influence of presence, andenriching the application of the CoI framework, thereby confirming that presence can reduceor enhance the learning experience. The results also may ensure TELL courses are designed as
vigorous learning environs which facilitate language acquisition.

85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

References
Akhter, H., Rahman, A. A. A., Jafrin, N., Saif, A. N. M., Esha, B. H., & Mostafa, R.
(2022). Investigating the barriers that intensify undergraduates’ unwillingness toonline learning during COVID-19: A study on public universities in a developing
country, Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2028342
Ali, S., Uppal, M. A. & Gulliver, S. R. (2018). A conceptual framework highlighting elearning implementation barriers. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 156–180.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0246
Alvi, I. (2021a). College students’ reception of social networking tools for learning in India:
an extended UTAUT model. Smart Learning Environment, 8(1), 19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00164-9
Alvi, I. (2021b). Effects of Technology-based Feedback on Learning. In Gupta, S. L., Kishor,N., Mishra, N., Mathur, S., & Gupta, U. (Ed.) Transforming Higher education
through Digitalization: Insight, Tools and Techniques (pp. 203-221). Boca Raton,
Taylor & Francis Group: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003132097
Alvi, I. (2022). Effect of Communication Strategies for Implementation of IT-based
Educational Innovation During COVID-19 Pandemic on Students’ Motivation,
Attitude, and Intent. IIMS Journal of Management Science, 13(1), 55–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0976030X211051096
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Accessing teachingpresence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning,
Networking, 5(2),1–17. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
Annand, D. (2019). Limitations of the Community of Inquiry Framework. International
Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(2), 1–15.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1242715
Annand, D. (2011). Social Presence within the Community of Inquiry Framework.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5), 40–56.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.924
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C.,& Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing ameasure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample.
Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Bigné, E., Badenes-Rocha, A., Ruiz, C., & Andreu Simó, L. (2019). Development of a
Blended Course for Online Teaching: Process and Outcomes. Journal of Management
and Business Education, 2(2), 108-126. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2019.0010
Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2021). The Acceptance of Learning Management
Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 8, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y
Caskurlu S., Maeda Y., & Richardson J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing therelationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning.
Computers & Education, 157, 103966. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604

86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Cavanagh A. J., Aragón, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, A., Durham, F., Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer,
D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student Buy-In to Active Learning in a College
Science Course. CBE: Life Sciences Education, 15(4):ar76.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212.
Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy
and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computer
Education, 60, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008
Cenfetelli, R. T., & Schwarz, A. (2011). Identifying and testing the inhibitors of technology
usage intentions. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 808–823.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23207664
Chang, R. I., Hung, Y. H. & Lin, C. F. (2015). Survey of learning experiences and influenceof learning style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(3), 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12275
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online
learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 13(4), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1234
Dempsey, P. R., & Zhang, J. (2019). Re-examining the construct validity and casual
relationships of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in community of inquiry
framework. Online Learning, 23, 62–79. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1419
Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey (Ed.). Dewey on Education (pp. 19–32).
New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 49, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Faul F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner A. (2007). G∗Power 3: a flexible statisticalpower analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behaviour Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Garrison, D. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework forresearch and practice (3rd ed). London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry model:
review, issues, and future directions. Internet Higher Education, 10, 157–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community ofinquiry model: a retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide andReference, Boston. Pearson.
Green, Z., & Batool, S. (2017). Emotionalized learning experiences: Tapping into theaffective domain. Evaluation and Program Planning, 62, 35–48.
https://0-doiorg.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.004

87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Heilporn, G., & Lakhal, S. (2020). Investigating the reliability and validity of the communityof inquiry framework: An analysis of categories within each presence. Computer
Education, 145, 103712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712
Hilliard, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: creating a community of inquiry inblended first-year writing courses. Internet Higher Education, 41, 11–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.11.002.
Huang, H. M., & Liaw, S. S. (2018). An analysis of learners’ intentions toward virtual reality
learning based on constructivist and technology acceptance approaches. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1, 91–115.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2503
Huang, Y. C., Backman, S. J., Backman, K. F. McGuire, F. A., & Moore, D. (2019). An
investigation of motivation and experience in virtual learning environments: a selfdetermination theory. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 591–611.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9784-5
Junus, K., Santoso, H. B., & Ahmad, M. (2022). Experiencing the community of inquiry
framework using asynchronous online role-playing in computer-aided instruction
class. Education and Information Technologies volume, 27, 2283–2309.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10670-5
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction
with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23(26507), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507
Kaur, D. J., Saraswat, N. & Alvi, I. (2021). Exploring the Effects of Blended Learning using
WhatsApp on Language Learners’ Lexical Competence. Rupkatha Journal on
Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 13(4), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v13n4.60.
Kilis, S., & Yıldırım, Z. (2018). Investigation of community of inquiry framework in regard
to self-regulation, metacognition and motivation. Computers and Education, 126, 53–
64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.032.
Kiran, A. H. (2012). Technological Presence: Actuality and Potentiality in Subject
Constitution. Human Studies, 35, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9208-7
Kozan, K. & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the nth presence for the community of inquiry
framework. Computers and Education, 122, 104-118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.010
Kreijns, K., Xu, K. & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social Presence: Conceptualization andMeasurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 139–170.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
Lane, A. (2019). The impact of technology on the teaching and assessment of ‘systems’
diagrams in two online environmental management modules. Open Learning: The
Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 34(1), 61–77.
Lai, C. (2013). A framework of developing self-directed technology use for language
learning. Language Learning and Technology, 17, 100–122.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404513000390

88

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Lin, S., Hung, T. C., & Lee, C. T. (2015). Revalidate forms of presence in training
effectiveness: Mediating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 53(1), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0735633115588772
Ma, Z., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Kong, L., Wu, Y., & Yang, H. (2017). Verifying causal
relationships among the presences of the community of inquiry framework in the
Chinese context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 18, 213–230. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3197.
Mageira, K., Pittou, D., Papasalouros, A., Kotis, K., Zangogianni, P., & Daradoumis, A.
(2022). Educational AI Chatbots for Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Applied Science, 12, 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073239.
Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A Meta-Analysis on the Community ofInquiry Presences and Learning Outcomes in Online and Blended Learning
Environments. Online Learning, 26(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604
Mykota, D. (2017). The impact of learner characteristics on the multi-dimensional construct ofsocial presence. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 137–144.
Park, H., & Shea, P. (2020). A review of ten-year research through co-citation analysis:
Online learning, distance learning and blended learning. Online Learning. 24(2), 225–
44. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2001
Parrish, C. W., Guffey, S. K. & Williams, D. S., Estis, J. M., & Lewis, D. (2021). Fostering
Cognitive Presence, Social Presence and Teaching Presence with Integrated Online—
Team-Based Learning, TechTrends, 65, 473–484.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00598-5.
Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated
model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225
Pillai, R. (2020). An empirical study on the online learning experience of MOOCs: Indian
students’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(3), 586–
609. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2019-0025
Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online componentof blended learning: A systematic review. Computer and Education, 144, 103701.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to
students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster“epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computer and
Education, 52, 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: towards a theory of self-efficacy, selfregulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended
learning environments. Computer and Education, 55, 1721–1731.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017.
Song, M., & Yuan, R. (2015). Beyond social presence: increasing cognitive presence throughmeaningful interaction. In Proceedings of Global learn Berlin 2015: Global
conference on Learning and technology (pp. 731–736). Berlin, Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

89

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 2 – 2022

Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh,
J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities ofinquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12. e-mentor.www.e-mentor.edu.pl/eng
Tetri, B., & Juujärvi, S. (2022). Self-Efficacy, Internet Self-Efficacy, and Proxy Efficacy as
Predictors of the Use of Digital Social and Health Care Services Among Mental
Health Service Users in Finland: A Cross-Sectional Study. Psychology research andbehavior management, 15, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S340867
Thomas, M., Harris, R., & King-Berry, A. (2017). Creating inclusive online learning
environments that build community and enhance learning. In P. Vu, S. Fredrickson, &C. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and technologies
for online learning in higher education. IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1851-8.ch014
Wei, L., Hu, Y., Zuo, M., & Luo, H. (2020). Extending the COI Framework to K-12
Education: Development and Validation of a Learning Experience Questionnaire. In
Blended Learning: Education in a Smart Learning Environment. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51968-1_26
Wertz, R. E. H. (2022). Learning presence within the Community of Inquiry framework: An
alternative measurement survey for a four-factor model. The Internet and Higher
Education, 52, 1096–7516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100832
Wood, R., & Shirazi, S. (2020). A systematic review of audience response systems forteaching and learning in higher education: the student experience. Computer and
Education, 153, 103896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103896
Woodcock, S., Sisco, A. & Eady, M. (2015). The learning experience: training teachers using
online synchronous environments. Journal of Educational Research and Practice,5(1), 21-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2015.05.1.02
Yu, Z., & Li, M. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of Community of Inquiry in online learning
contexts over twenty-five years. Education and Information Technologies, 5, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11081-w
Yu, Z., Xu, W., & Yu, L. (2022). Constructing an online sustainable educational model in the
COVID-19 pandemic environments. Sustainability, 14(6), 3598.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063598
Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: a self-determination
perspective. Computers and Education, 92-93 (2), 194–203.
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012
Zhou, M., Dzingirai, C., Hove, K., Chitata, T., & Mugandani, R. (2022). Adoption, use andenhancement of virtual learning during COVID-19. Education and Information
Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10985-x
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,methodological developments, and future prospects. American Education Research
Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909
Corresponding Author: Irum Alvi
Email: irumalvi@gmail.com

90