Abstract
In online STEM courses, self-regulated learning (SRL) serves a critical role in academic success because students are required to monitor and regulate their learning processes. Yet, relatively little research has investigated which and to what extent do SRL strategies contribute to students’ online learning experiences. In this paper, with a lens of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2001), we investigated which students' SRL strategy use predicts three elements of the perceptions of CoI: teaching, social, and cognitive presences. Our sample included 278 undergraduate STEM students who enrolled in a self-paced online course teaching the introductory level of calculus. A Multiple Indicator-Multiple Cause (MIMIC) analysis was employed to investigate the SRL predictors that affect three elements of CoI. Prior to MIMIC analyses, we confirmed the dimensionalities of the SRL and the perceptions of CoI, respectively, through a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). The MIMIC analysis revealed that environmental structuring and help-seeking affected teaching presence. Social presence was predicted by goal setting and self-evaluation through peers, whereas environmental structuring, time management, and self-evaluation through peers predicted cognitive presence. The findings of this study provide new empirical evidence on the different roles of SRL in promoting three elements of the perceptions of CoI. Academic and practical implications of the findings of the study were discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to participant privacy but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
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
Amoozegar, A., Daud, S. M., Mahmud, R., & Jalil, H. A. (2017). Exploring learner to institutional factors and learner characteristics as a success factor in distance learning. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences, 4(6), 647–656. Retrieved from https://www.ijires.org/index.php/issues?view=publication&task=show&id=331
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1- 17. http://hdl.handle.net/2149/725
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Artino, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 191–202. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=5
Azevedo, R., & Gašević, D. (2019). Analyzing multimodal multichannel data about self-regulated learning with advanced learning technologies: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.025
Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from “Media Richness Theory” perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/9.1.1.pdf
Barak, M. (2012). From ‘doing’ to ‘doing with learning’: Reflection on an effort to promote self-regulated learning in technological projects in high school. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.658759
Barnard, L., Lan, W., To, Y., Paton, V., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005
Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.769
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Bull, S., Greer, J., McCalla, G. O. R. D., & Kettel, L. O. R. I. (2001, May). Help-seeking in an asynchronous help forum. In Proceedings of workshop on help provision and help-seeking in interactive learning environments, international conference on artificial intelligence in education. San Antonio, TX, USA.
Cho, M. H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770
Cho, M. H., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students’ perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.001\
Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Educational Research International, 2012, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/428639
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies and application. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books.
Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30, 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z
Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Publications.
Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Fung, J. J., Yuen, M., & Yuen, A. H. (2018). Validity evidence for a Chinese version of the online self-regulated learning questionnaire with average students and mathematically talented students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 51(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1358056
García, B. J., Tenorio, G. C., & Ramírez, M. S. (2015). Self-motivation challenges for student involvement in the Open Educational Movement with MOOC. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2185
García-Pérez, D., Fraile, J., & Panadero, E. (2021). Learning strategies and self-regulation in context: How higher education students approach different courses, assessments, and challenges. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(2), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00488-z
Garger, J., Jacques, P. H., Gastle, B. W., & Connolly, C. M. (2019). Threats of common method variance in student assessment of instruction instruments. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 13(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-05-2018-0012
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), 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. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers, G. A. Berg, J. V. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. D. Schenk (Eds.). Encyclopedia of distance learning (pp. 352–355). (2nd ed.). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
Giannousi, M., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2016). Cognitive, social, and teaching presence as predictors of students’ satisfaction in distance learning. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2 SI), 439–439. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2s1p439
Greene, J. A. (2018). Self-regulation in education. Routledge.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., Sudweeks, R. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2013). Academic performance, course completion rates, and student perception of the quality and frequency of interaction in a virtual high school. Distance Education, 34(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770430
Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2012). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1670
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2013). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Computers & Education, 62, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.027
Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351a), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1975.10482485
Kilis, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2018). Online self-regulation questionnaire: Validity and reliability study of Turkish translation. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(1), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.298791
Kim, D., Jung, E., Yoon, M., Chang, Y., Park, S., Kim, D., & Demir, F. (2021). Exploring the structural relationships between course design factors, learner commitment, self-directed learning, and intentions for further learning in a self-paced MOOC. Computers & Education, 166, 104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104171
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100404
Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the Nth presence for the Community of Inquiry framework. Computers & Education, 122, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.010
Lee, D., Lee, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3749
Lehmann, T., Hähnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051
Li, S., Du, H., Xing, W., Zheng, J., Chen, G., & Xie, C. (2020). Examining temporal dynamics of self-regulated learning behaviors in STEM learning: A network approach. Computers & Education, 158, 103987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103987
Li, S., Zheng, J., Huang, X., & Xie, C. (2022). Self-regulated learning as a complex dynamical system: Examining students’ STEM learning in a simulation environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 95, 102144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102144
Lim, J., & Richardson, J. C. (2021). Predictive effects of undergraduate students’ perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presence on affective learning outcomes according to disciplines. Computers & Education, 161, 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104063
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P., & Makowski, D. (2021). performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning, 26(1), 325–359. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1340511.pdf
McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2023). Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000425
Miertschin, S. L., Goodson, C. E., & Stewart, B. L. (2015, June). Time management skills and student performance in online courses. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 1585.1–1585.16). Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/24921
Molenaar, I., de Mooij, S., Azevedo, R., Bannert, M., Järvelä, S., & Gašević, D. (2023). Measuring self-regulated learning and the role of AI: Five years of research using multimodal multichannel data. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107540
Moore, W. S. (1990). The learning environment preferences: An instrument manual. Center for the Study of Intellectual Development.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Ann Arbor University of Michigan. National Center for Research to improve postsecondary teaching and learning.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Revelle, W. (2022). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.2.9, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
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
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Rovers, S. F., Clarebout, G., Savelberg, H. H., de Bruin, A. B., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2019). Granularity matters: Comparing different ways of measuring self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 14, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09188-6
Saez, F., Mella, J., Loyer, S., Zambrano, C., & Zanartu, N. (2020). Self-regulated learning in engineering students: A systematic review. Revista Espacios, 41(2). 1–7. Retrieved from http://w.revistaespacios.com/a20v41n02/20410207.html
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Schworm, S., & Gruber, H. (2012). e-Learning in universities: Supporting help-seeking processes by instructional prompts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 272–281.
Severiens, S., Ten Dam, G., & Van Hout Wolters, B. (2001). Stability of processing and regulation strategies: Two longitudinal studies on student learning. Higher Education, 42(4), 437–453. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3448099
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.4.b
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.011
Stover, S., & Miura, Y. (2015). The effects of web conferencing on the community of inquiry in online classes. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 26(3), 121–143. http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/issue.php?v=26&n=3
Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., et al. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12. https://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/24/543.pdf
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Pynoo, B., Lombaerts, K., Tondeur, J., & Scherer, R. (2019). A latent profile analysis of adult students’ online self-regulation in blended learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.021
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Harvard University Press.
Wang, Q., Peng, Y., & Wang, H. (2021). A curation activity-based self-regulated learning promotion approach as scaffolding to improving learners’ performance in STEM courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331211056532. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F07356331211056532
Wertz, R. E. (2022). Learning presence within the Community of Inquiry framework: An alternative measurement survey for a four-factor model. The Internet and Higher Education, 52, 100832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100832
West, S. G., Wu, W., McNeish, D., & Savord, A. (2023). Model Fit in Structural Equation Modeling In R H. Hoyle, Handbook of structural equation modeling, second edition (pp. 185-205). Guilford.
Williams-Dobosz, D., Jeng, A., Azevedo, R. F., Bosch, N., Ray, C., & Perry, M. (2021). Ask for help: Online help-seeking and help-giving as indicators of cognitive and social presence for students underrepresented in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(12), 3693–3703. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00839
Xu, Z., Zhao, Y., Liew, J., Zhou, X., & Kogut, A. (2023). Synthesizing research evidence on self-regulated learning and academic achievement in online and blended learning environments: A scoping review. Educational Research Review. 100510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9426-9
Yang, R., Wibowo, S., Mubarak, S., & Rahamathulla, M. (2023). Managing students' attitude, learning engagement, and stickiness towards e-learning post-COVID-19 in Australian universities: a perceived qualities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2204466
Yu, T., & Richardson, J. C. (2015). Examining reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Community of Inquiry instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.004
Zhang, H., Lin, L., Zhan, Y., & Ren, Y. (2016). The impact of teaching presence on online engagement behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116648171
Zheng, J., Xing, W., Zhu, G., Chen, G., Zhao, H., & Xie, C. (2020). Profiling self-regulation behaviors in STEM learning of engineering design. Computers & Education, 143, 103669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103669
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of Utah State University.
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Online self-regulated learning questionnaire (OSLQ) (Barnard et al., 2009)
Goal setting
Item 1: I set standards for my assignments in online courses.
Item 2: I set short-term (daily or weekly) goals as well as long-term goals (monthly or for the semester).
Item 3: I keep a high standard for my learning in my online courses.
Item 4: I set goals to help me manage study time for my online courses.
Item 5: I don't compromise the quality of my work because it is online.
Environment structuring
Item 1: I choose the location where I study to avoid too much distraction.
Item 2: I find a comfortable place to study.
Item 3: I know where I can study most efficiently for online courses.
Item 4: I choose a time with few distractions for studying for my online courses.
Task strategies
Item 1: I try to take more thorough notes for my online courses because notes are even more important for learning online than in a regular classroom.
Item 2: I read aloud instructional materials posted online to fight against distractions.
Item 3: I prepare my questions before joining in discussion forum.
Item 4: I work extra problems in my online courses in addition to the assigned ones to master the course content.
Time management
Item 1: I allocate extra studying time for my online courses because I know it is time demanding.
Item 2: I try to schedule the same time every day or every week to study for my online courses, and I observe the schedule.
Item 3: Although we don't have to attend daily classes, I still try to distribute my studying time evenly across days.
Help-seeking
Item 1: I find someone who is knowledgeable in course content so that I can consult with him or her when I need help.
Item 2: I share my problems with my classmates online, so we know what we are struggling with and how to solve our problems.
Item 3: If needed, I try to meet my classmates face-to-face.
Item 4: I am persistent in getting help from the instructor through e-mail.
Self-evaluation through strategy
Item 1: I summarize my learning in online courses to examine my understanding of what I have learned.
Item 2: I ask myself a lot of questions about the course material when studying for an online course.
Self-evaluation through peers
Item 1: I communicate with my classmates to find out how I am doing in my online classes.
Item 2: I communicate with my classmates to find out what I am learning that is different from what they are learning.
Appendix 2 Community of inquiry instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008)
After checking measurement models, items with asterisk (*) were removed in a main analysis.
Teaching Presence (TP)
Item TP1: The instructor clearly communicated important course topics.
Item TP2: The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.
Item TP3: The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities.
Item TP4: The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities.
Item TP5: The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn.
Item TP6: The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking.
Item TP7: The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue.
Item TP8: The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn.
Item TP9: The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.
*Item TP10: Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.
*Item TP11: The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn.
*Item TP12: The instructor provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the course's goals and objectives.
Item TP13: The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.
Social Presence (SP)
*Item SP1: Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.
Item SP2: I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.
Item SP3: Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.
Item SP4: I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.
Item SP5: I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.
Item SP6: I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.
Item SP7: I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust.
Item SP8: I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants.
Item SP9: Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.
Cognitive Presence (CP)
Item CP1: Problems posed increased my interest in course issues.
Item CP2: Course activities piqued my curiosity.
Item CP3: I felt motivated to explore content related questions.
Item CP4: I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course.
Item CP5: Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content related questions.
Item CP6: Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.
Item CP7: Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in course activities.
Item CP8: Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.
Item CP9: Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in this class.
Item CP10: I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.
Item CP11: I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.
*Item CP12: I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.
Appendix 3 Structure and measurement model results in MIMIC model
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Na, C., Lee, D., Moon, J. et al. Modeling undergraduate students’ learning dynamics between self-regulated learning patterns and community of inquiry. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12527-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12527-z