Translating and Validating the Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument in Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i4.6304Keywords:
Instrument validation, community of inquiry, exploratory factor analysis, massive open online courses, instrument translation, Brazilian PortugueseAbstract
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have emerged as an affordable way to distribute knowledge and democratize education. The examination of online courses calls for theoretical models and instruments that contemplate its particularities. The community of inquiry (CoI) framework has been used in several studies to analyze the effectiveness of online education and hybrid education, including MOOCs. This study aimed to translate and validate the Community of Inquiry Survey instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008) into Brazilian Portuguese, and used a two-stage methodological design for translating and validating a questionnaire. In the first stage, we carried out translation, back-translation, and cross-cultural adaptation. We translated the 34 items while maintaining the survey’s original format. In the expert evaluation phase, all items were considered understandable and essential for inclusion in the Brazilian Portuguese version of the CoI instrument. In the second stage, a prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to validate the questionnaire, and data was collected from participants completing the Nursing Assessment MOOC available on the Lúmina platform. A total of 690 responses were gathered. The resulting instrument produced excellent results, and the three presences achieved high reliability indexes, clearly indicating their adequacy. Furthermore, this study proved the validation of the CoI instrument, maintaining the three-factor structure previously reported in the literature corresponding to the three presences: teaching, social, and cognitive presence. We recommend further studies to evaluate the need for excluding or altering cognitive presence items.
References
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. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2018). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC Motivation and participation in MOOCs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 16(2), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Caskurlu, S., Maeda, Y., Richardson, J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers and Education, 157(September 2019), 103966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103966
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. (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
Government of Brazil. (2012). Resolução nº 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012 [Resolution No. 466, December 12, 2012]. National Health Council, Ministry of Health. http://www.conselho.saude.gov.br/web_comissoes/conep/index.html
Impey, C., & Formanek, M. (2021). MOOCS and 100 days of COVID: Enrollment surges in massive open online astronomy classes during the coronavirus pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100177
Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S., Siemens, G., & Gaševićc, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 119, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010
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(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3197
Moreira, J. A., Ferreira, A. G., & Almeida, A. C. (2013). Comparing communities of inquiry of Portuguese higher education students: One for all or one for each? Open Praxis, 5(2), 165–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944.
Mills, J., Yates, K., Harrison, H., Woods, C., Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Trueman, S., & Hitchins, M. (2016). Using a community of inquiry framework to teach a nursing and midwifery research subject: An evaluative study. Nurse Education Today, 43, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.016
Olpak, Y. Z., & Kiliç Çakmak, E. (2018). Examining the reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the community of inquiry survey. Online Learning, 22(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.990
Phillips, D., Forbes, H., & Duke, M. (2013). Teaching and learning innovations for postgraduate education in nursing. Collegian, 20(3), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2012.05.003
Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., de Vries, P., Hennis, T., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2018). Social presence in massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3370
Safri, S. N. W., Mohi, Z. & Hanafiah, M. H. (2020). Massive open online course (MOOC): Our saviour during COVID-19 pandemic? Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 12(3), 120–128. fhtm.uitm.edu.my/images/jthca/Vol12Issue3/Chap_8.pdf
Smadi, O., Parker, S., Gillham, D., & Müller, A. (2019). The applicability of community of inquiry framework to online nursing education: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Education in Practice, 34, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2018.10.003
Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 39(June), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.001
Stephens, M., & Hennefer, D. (2013). Internationalising the nursing curriculum using a community of inquiry framework and blended learning. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.08.010
Stranach, M. (2017). Social presence in two massive open online courses (MOOCs): A multiple case study [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Calgary. http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/27816
Velázquez, B. B., Gil-Jaurena, I., & Encina, J. M. (2019). Validation of the Spanish Version of the ‘Community of Inquiry’ survey. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 59(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/59/04
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
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.
