Gaining insight from survey data: an analysis of the community of inquiry survey using Rasch measurement techniques

Abstract

This article presents the results of evaluating a dataset collected with the Community of inquiry (CoI) survey (Arbaugh, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 9:1–21, 2008) using Rasch psychometric techniques to evaluate instrument functioning. Data were collected over a two-year period yielding a sample of 704 survey responses from students who were enrolled in a blended online graduate program. The purpose of this article is to present a Rasch analysis of the CoI survey to provide insight into the functioning of the instrument beyond other statistical analyses of the CoI that have been conducted to date. The results of the analysis provide new insights into the functioning of this measurement instrument and demonstrate the usefulness of Rasch techniques. The rationale for using Rasch techniques as well as the implications of this technique when using the CoI survey when conducting research or evaluations of practices in blended online courses are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source: http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/coi (licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arbaugh, J., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boone, W., Staver, J., & Yale, M. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrect: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi, B. (2018). Cross-cultural adaptation and construct validity of the Korean version of a physical activity measure for community-dwelling elderly. The Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 30, 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.30.177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

  11. Community of Inquiry Survey. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/coi-survey/

  12. Díaz, S. R., Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fisher, W. (1992). Reliability, separation, strata statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6(3), 238.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-Learning in the 21st century : A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Graham, C. R. (2009). Blended learning models. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 375–382). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Horzum, M. B., & Uyank, G. K. (2015). An item response theory analysis of the community of inquiry scale. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 16(2), 206–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., et al. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in massive open online courses. Computers and Education, 119, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Linacre, J. M. (2002a). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Linacre, J. M. (2002b). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Linacre, J. M. (2003). Rasch power analysis: Size vs. significance: Infit and outfit mean-square and standardized chi-square fit statistic. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Linacre, J. M. (2018). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program User’s Guide. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maddrell, J. A., Morrison, G. R., & Watson, G. S. (2011). Community of inquiry framework and learner achievement. In: annual meeting of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Jacksonville, FL.

  28. Malec, J. F., Torsher, L. C., Dunn, W. F., Wiegmann, D. A., Arnold, J. J., Brown, D. A., & Phatak, V. (2007). The mayo high performance teamwork scale: reliability and validity for evaluating key crew resource management skills. Simulation in Healthcare: Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2(1), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  31. O’Connor, J. P., Penney, D., Alfrey, L., Phillipson, S., Phillipson, S. N., & Jeanes, R. (2016). The development of the Stereotypical attitudes in HPE scale. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Perera, C. J., Bambang, S., & Na, J. (2018). The psychometric validation of the principal practices questionnaire based on item response theory. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 2(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic model for some intelligence and achievement tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Reliability and separation of measures. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2019, from https://www.winsteps.com/winman/reliability.htm

  35. Sener, J. (2015). E-Learning Definitions. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/updated-e-learning-definitions-2/

  36. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721–1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the community of inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Swan, K. P., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wicks, D. A., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K., & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a faculty learning community. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. (1999). Measurement essentials. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason T. Abbitt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 9.

Table 9 Item number, subscale, reference codes and text

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbitt, J.T., Boone, W.J. Gaining insight from survey data: an analysis of the community of inquiry survey using Rasch measurement techniques. J Comput High Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09268-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Community of inquiry
  • Community of inquiry survey
  • Blended learning
  • Rasch
  • Measurement