Student Engagement, Community of Inquiry, and Transactional Distance in Online Learning Environments: A Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i4.7660Keywords:
student engagement, transactional distance, community of inquiry, online learning, regression analysisAbstract
This study explored the complex dynamics of student engagement, community of inquiry, and transactional distance in online learning environments. The study analyzed 1,281 participants’ responses to identify the factors contributing to online learning outcomes. The research highlighted the crucial role that transactional distance and community of inquiry play in shaping students’ behavioral engagement and provided insight into their significant impact on participants’ learning experience. Through a stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, the research uncovered the complex relationships among these variables, thereby providing valuable insights for educators and institutions aiming to enhance the online learning experience. The results have significant implications for educational practitioners and policymakers, including practical strategies to increase student engagement and foster a lively community of inquiry in online learning environments. Ultimately, this research is a valuable resource for all those involved in online education, to help them understand the key factors that contribute to successful online learning experiences.
References
Alhih, M., Ossiannilsson, E., & Berigel, M. (2017). Levels of interaction provided by online distance education models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2733–2748. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01250a
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
Baloran, E. T., Hernan, J. T., & Taoy, J. S. (2021). Course satisfaction and student engagement in online learning amid COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1002721
Bond, M., & Bergdahl, N. (2022). Student engagement in open, distance, and digital education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9_79-1
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Buyarski, C. A., Bloom, J. L., Murray, J. E., & Hutson, B. L. (2011). Engaging families in supporting their students: An appreciative approach. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 19(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v19i1.2779
Çebi, A. (2023). How e-learning readiness and motivation affect student interactions in distance learning? Education and Information Technologies, 28, 2941–2960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11312-0
Chatterjee, S., & Parra, J. (2022). Undergraduate students engagement in formal and informal learning: Applying the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211062552
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Dewan, M. A. A., Murshed, M., & Lin, F. (2019). Engagement detection in online learning: A review. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0080-z
Dharmadjaja, P. N., & Tiatri, S. (2021). The effect of online interaction types and acceptance of technology factors on student satisfaction with online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (pp. 936–942). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.148
Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C. J., & Heo, H. (2023). Examinations of the relationships between self-efficacy, self-regulation, teaching, cognitive presences, and learning engagement during COVID-19. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10187-3
Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C. J., Shin, C. H., & Woo, B. -D. (2021). Structural relationships among self-regulation, transactional distance, and learning engagement in a large university class using flipped learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(3), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1832020
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
Ergün, E., & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2015). The Turkish adaptation of student’s engagements scale in online learning environment: A study of validity and reliability. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.64661
Fabian, K., Smith, S., Taylor-Smith, E., & Meharg, D. (2022). Identifying factors influencing study skills engagement and participation for online learners in higher education during COVID-19. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1915–1936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13221
Febrinzky, I. T. (2020). The influence of student engagement towards learning achievement of School of Communication and Business Telkom University. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Politik Dan Humaniora, 3(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.36624/jisora.v3i1.51
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.
Hajibayova, L. (2017). Students’ viewpoint: What constitutes presence in an online classroom? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2016.1241972
Hambali, N., Zaiton, S. N. ‘Ain H., Sidik, N., Hanib, N. H., Zahid, F. S., & Rahim, N. H. (2022). Exploring online education experience through the teaching, social and cognitive presences. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(10), 1440–1459. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i10/14871
Harb, J., & Krish, P. (2020). Cognitive presence in a blended learning environment at Jordanian universities. Arab World English Journal, 11(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.4
Hu, S. (2011). Reconsidering the relationship between student engagement and persistence in college. Innovative Higher Education, 36(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9158-4
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Dowell, N., Mills, C., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Graesser, A. C., & Brooks, C. (2018). How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOCs. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 43–86. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317740335
Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12005
Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G., Zhang, K., Ustun, A. B., & Yilmaz, R. (2022). Transactional distance perceptions, student engagement, and course satisfaction in flipped learning: A correlational study. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2091603
Karasar, N. (2020). Scientific research method: Concepts, principles, techniques. Nobel Publishing.
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507
Klavina, A., & Block, M. E. (2008). The effect of peer tutoring on interaction behaviors in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25(2), 132–158. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.25.2.132
Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455
Kuo, Y. -C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
Lee, Y., & Pillai, V. (2022). The impact of online learning on 7th grade students’ perception of engagement, social presence, and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Student Research, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i3.3685
Li, L., Zhang, R., & Piper, A. M. (2023). Predictors of student engagement and perceived learning in emergency online education amidst COVID-19: A community of inquiry perspective. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 12, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100326
Li, Q., Jiang, Q., Liang, J. -C., Pan, X., & Zhao, W. (2022). The influence of teaching motivations on student engagement in an online learning environment in China. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7280
Liu, B., Xing, W., Zeng, Y., & Wu, Y. (2022). Linking cognitive processes and learning outcomes: The influence of cognitive presence on learning performance in MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13193
Luthfiarini, P., & Susandari. (2022). Pengaruh community of inquiry terhadap student’s satisfaction in online learning di Universitas Islam Bandung. Bandung Conference Series: Psychology Science, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.29313/bcsps.v2i1.1096
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Mayne, L. A., & Wu, Q. (2011). Creating and measuring social presence in online graduate nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.110
McCreery, M. P., Schrader, P. G., Krach, S. K., & Boone, R. (2013). A sense of self: The role of presence in virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1635–1640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.002
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018
Mitchell, C., Cours Anderson, K., Laverie, D., & Hass, A. (2021). Distance be damned: The importance of social presence in a pandemic constrained environment. Marketing Education Review, 31(4), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2021.1936561
Moon, J., & Ke, F. (2020). Exploring the relationships among middle school students’ peer interactions, task efficiency, and learning engagement in game-based learning. Simulation & Gaming, 51(3), 310–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120907940
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Keegan, D. (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Moore, M. G. (2018). The theory of transactional distance. In Moore, M. G. & Diehl, W. C. (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 32–46). Routledge.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269
Natarajan, J., & Joseph, M. A. (2022). Impact of emergency remote teaching on nursing students’ engagement, social presence, and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Forum, 57(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12649
Oyarzun, B., Stefaniak, J., Bol, L., & Morrison, G. R. (2018). Effects of learner-to-learner interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9157-x
Öztürk, E. (2012). An adaptation of the community of inquiry index: The study of validity and reliability. Elementary Education Online, 11(2), 408–422.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, PA: Open University.
Pardales, M. J., & Girod, M. (2006). Community of inquiry: Its past and present future. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00196.x
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Online Learning, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870
Ramadhani, S. A., & Wulandari, L. (2019). The difference of student engagement between Javanese and non-Javanese students who are studying in Malang. Proceedings of the 4th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (pp. 288–290). https://doi.org/10.2991/acpch-18.2019.70
Richardson, J. C., Besser, E., Koehler, A., Lim, J., & Strait, M. (2016). Instructors’ perceptions of instructor presence in online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2330
Saraç, M., & Doğan, M. (2022). Evaluation of the instructor-student interaction in online classes: Instructors’ perspective. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1122570
Setyawati, A., Wijaya, S., & Widjaja, D. C. (2022). The effect of student’s perception of learning innovation on student engagement and student satisfaction. Petra International Journal of Business Studies, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.9744/ijbs.5.2.198-205
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.915
Starr-Glass, D. (2013). From connectivity to connected learners: Transactional distance and social presence. In C. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention in e-learning environments: Web 2.0 and blended learning technologies (Vol. 6, Part G, pp. 113–143). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2013)000006G007
Sun, J. C. -Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Sun, Y., Ni, L., Zhao, Y., Shen, X. -L., & Wang, N. (2019). Understanding students’ engagement in MOOCs: An integration of self-determination theory and theory of relationship quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), e0001. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12724
Supardi, S., & Ashari, S. (2021). Determinants of vocational student satisfaction levels following online lectures during the COVID-19 pandemic. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 31(3), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2021.v31.i03.p12
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/23488
Tadesse, T., & Edo, B. (2020). The relationships between student engagement and learning outcome in the undergraduate sports science program in Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2019-0017
Themeli, C., & Bougia, A. (2016). Tele-proximity: Tele-community of inquiry model. Facial cues for social, cognitive, and teacher presence in distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2453
van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. -J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003
Vaughan, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.007
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development community of inquiry. Online Learning, 10(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i4.1750
Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters: The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3417
Wu, Y. (2016). Factors impacting students’ online learning experience in a learner-centred course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(5), 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12142
Xiao, M., Zhou, J., & Xu, T. (2021). Research on the influence of synchronous interactive class on student online learning engagement. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 98–104). https://doi.org/10.1145/3436756.3437028
Xiaoxing, L., & Deris, F. D. (2022). CoI-based teaching practices to promote EFL learners’ online discussion in China’s blended learning context. Asian Journal of University Education, 18(2), 477–488.
Xue, J., Xu, X., Wu, Y., & Hu, P. (2023). Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework and satisfaction: Examining the role of academic emotion and self-regulation in a structural model. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1046737
Yılmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2015). The adaptation study of transactional distance scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(4), 91–105.
Yilmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251–260.
Yu, Z. (2022). Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 14(8), 4388.
Zapata-Cuervo, N., Montes-Guerra, M. I., Shin, H. H., Jeong, M., & Cho, M. -H. (2023). Students’ psychological perceptions toward online learning engagement and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative analysis of students in three different countries. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 35(2), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2021.1907195
Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University]. LearnTechLib. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/117282
Zhao, H., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Teaching presence in computer conferencing learning environments: Effects on interaction, cognition and learning uptake. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12383
Zilka, G. C., Cohen, R., & Rahimi, I. (2018). Teacher presence and social presence in virtual and blended courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 103–126.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.