Collaborative learning
Learning CoI by role-playing online discussions
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Computer-science students practicing Community of Inquiry roles in asynchronous forums enacted all presence types, but struggled to reach resolution-level critical thinking.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Transcript, reflection, and questionnaire analysis of voluntary CoI role-play forums
- N
- N=63 · 63 CAI students; 22 voluntarily shared reflection experiences
- Population
- Computer-aided instruction students at Universitas Indonesia
- Outcome
- Enactment of CoI presence types and depth of critical thinking in asynchronous role-play
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Students implemented all CoI components, with social presence easiest to perform and feel immediately. Critical thinking often did not reach the resolution stage; groups produced discussion outputs without consistently applying all CoI sub-indicators, especially evaluating and directing discussions.
Methodology
CAI students at Universitas Indonesia voluntarily engaged in asynchronous online role-playing to apply the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Researchers analyzed discussion transcripts, reflections, and questionnaires to examine teaching, social, and cognitive presence patterns and students’ perceptions.
Limitations
Voluntary role-play with limited instructor intervention in one CAI course cannot prove CoI role-play outperforms other discussion pedagogies. Patterns may not transfer to larger, graded, or fully instructor-led online courses.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Social presence is often the easiest CoI component for students to enact and feel in asynchronous role-play, even when critical thinking stalls before resolution.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Student importance ratings for quality factors are not the same evidence as observed discourse quality or learning gains.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Students often weight teaching presence and interactive features as higher-order online quality drivers above baseline modality conditions.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Student importance ratings for quality factors are not the same evidence as observed discourse quality or learning gains.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Groups may enact CoI components yet still fail to reach resolution-level critical thinking without stronger facilitation.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Student importance ratings for quality factors are not the same evidence as observed discourse quality or learning gains.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Student importance ratings for quality factors are not the same evidence as observed discourse quality or learning gains.
Student importance ratings for quality factors are not the same evidence as observed discourse quality or learning gains.
Student importance ratings for quality factors are not the same evidence as observed discourse quality or learning gains.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.