1. INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of online learning remains unclear from educators’ perspectives (Khalid & Quick, 2016). Any discourse on online learning must not fail to include the discussion on e-forum. It is important to examine the issue in a holistic manner, especially those relating to text-based communication (Allen & Seaman, 2014; Croxton, 2014; Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Educators and learners no longer confine their teaching and learning to face-to-face as the virtual alternative is gaining ground (Baharudin et al., 2018; Knowles, 2011; Mohammad et al., 2014). Hence, a number of Malaysian institutes of higher learning have taken the opportunity to offer numerous online courses to potential students of different ages (Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia [KPTM], 2013). At the moment, there are more than seven million students enrolled in at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2014). In terms of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Nordin and Norman (2018) stated that there are as of November 2017, there 226 MOOCs with almost 250,000 users enrolled in Malaysia MOOCs.

Three aspects have been identified by researchers as contributing to the effectiveness of online courses: teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence which later developed into Community of Inquiry model (CoI) (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2010a; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2010b). Teaching presence refers to e-tutors’ ability to communicate with learners whereas social presence focuses on learners’ ability to virtually interact with each other, and characterised by the notions of affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion . The third aspect, i.e. cognitive presence entails the cognitive applications of critical thinking, problem solving, reflection and resolution (Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison et al., 2010a; Garrison et al., 2010b).

Croxton (2014) and Spears (2012) emphasised that teaching presence is an important factor that contributes to learners’ active engagement in forum discussion. One of the issues that hinders the learners’ engagement is their discontentment with e-tutors (Nasir et al., 2018). Their discontentment, which was later manifested in the forms of psychological distress, declining interest in learning, enrolment attrition, and even dropping out of the course, needs to be seriously addressed (Bolliger & Martindale, 2004; Grandy, 2013; Howell, Jeffrey, & Buck, 2012; Roblyer & Wiencke, 2003; Swan, 2001). Apart from tutors’ feedback, communication among students was also important in encouraging participation in online discussion (Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Cobb, 2011; Spears, 2012; Zhan & Mei, 2013).

The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of online students in discussion forum via platform of Learning Management System (LMS) provided by a Malaysian university. Based on the CoI model, the objective is to identify whether teaching presence is the main contributor that influences students to actively engage in online discussion. This study also sought to investigate other variables that expand the knowledge base of CoI model. It is expected that context plays significant role as online learning ecosystem in Malaysia is different than that of other countries such as the United States, Korea and Taiwan.

2. METHODOLOGY

This study employed qualitative approach involving seventy-three research participants of a private institute of higher education. Research participants were selected based on the sampling frame provided by the university Classical content analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) was used to analyse participants’ responses based on themes of CoI ie teaching presence and subthemes of design and organisation, direct instruction and facilitation. Data were coded using NVivo and MIcrosoft Word to identify key word in context (KWIC) and key word outside context (KWOC).

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Forty-six participants (63%) responded to the email through Qualtrics hyperlink - an open-ended question: What are factors that motivate you to participate actively in online discussion? Most of the responses were from the Faculty of Business, Education and Language as summarised in Table 1.

Word count analyses show that words such as e-tutor, discussion, student, course, online, participation, learning, answers and forum have high frequency as in Table 2 and they are summarized in graphical form using word cloud analysis as in Figure . The larger font size indicate the higher frequency.

Based on CI themes, data were coded, count and sorted according to categories. Responses from 38 out of 48 students (83%) - teaching presence, especially on e-tutor’s ability to design, arrange, facilitate and teach online through LMS platform.

Data were sorted based on e-tutor’s capability of designing online teaching consisting five variables: (1) Clear explanation on main topics of a course, (2) Clear explanation on important information about a course, (3) Clear instruction on how to engage in learning activities, and (4) clear explanation on deadlines and duration of each of the learning activities.

Two participants said that if e-tutor’s instruction is clear, they feel motivated to actively discuss in the e-forum. Among their responses are:

“...to set rules and to predetermine only postings with a good quality are taken into consideration…”

“...if every good posting is given a score.. So I don’t have to spend much time, only if necessary…”

“..we have been using e-forum only to discuss about assignment, change of class schedule, topics for next meeting, but there is no clear guidelines like other courses..”

“...we only use e-forum to discuss about assignments, class rescheduling, and topics to be discussed in incoming meetings, but there has been no clear guidance like other courses…”

Data were sorted based on e-tutor’s ability to organize and facilitate students aspects of: (1) recognizing the similarities and differences in the topic of discussion; (2) comprehending the topics in the course; (3) encouraging more meaningful discussion in the e-forum; (4) helping students to focus on learning; and (5) encouraging more interactivity between students and learning communities/

Generally, 14 participants reported that they would be more motivated to actively participate in e-forum discussion if e-tutor could help them in comprehending the topics in the course. For instance,

“If there is any question, e-tutor would ask students to refer to the chapter but he/she did not specify which part”

“My e-tutor is not very skillful in giving explanation to students, he/she sometimes asks us to refer to the course

modules...my e-tutor did not encourage me to discover more about this course…”

“E-tutor’s feedback was very brief and not very valuable …”

“...there has been lack of support or involvement from tutors in the online discussion…”

“...role of e-tutor as e-forum moderator is very important in developing students’ interest to actively involved in the forum…”

Finally, data were sorted based on e-tutor’s ability to conduct online teaching in the aspects of: (1) to facilitate students’ focus on learning-related issues; (2) to provide feedback that enable the students to acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses, and (3) to give feedback within the reasonable period. There were seven participants were concerned about discussion on learning-related issues and five participants reiterated that they would be more motivated if e-tutor could give feedback in a reasonable time frame. Among their responses are:

“...most of e-tutors did not immediately provide feedbacks. For me they should be more active, to help and to assist..”

“...immediate feedback from e-tutor would encourage students to ..”engage in the forum discussion

“...the feedback is so slow and it’s like there is no one looking after the discussion forum…”

“...why not e-tutor who posts the questions in the discussion forum? ...”

Responses from open-ended questions show that e-tutor’s ability to design online teaching which includes important topics, course objectives, clear instructions on learning activities, is needed in order to maintain the quality of the courses offered. Findings of this study corresponds to the earlier studies on text-based e-forum discussion although different platforms were used.

Research participants were found to be more interested to join the e-forum if there were reward systems such as point reward system, with clear guidelines on how to conduct online discussions in focussed and orderly manner as suggested by previous studies (Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison et al., 2010a; Garrison et al., 2010b). The point reward system in the e-forum must be based on quality and not quantity. A post is considered the one with quality if it reflects critical thinking and attracts other students to join in. If the discussion is outside the scope, it is not qualified to be rewarded.

The e-tutor’s ability to organize and assist students in terms of identifying similarities and differences, understanding courses’ contents, guiding students towards more productive involvement in e-forum, helping students to focus on what they are learning, encouraging them to explore new concepts, and stimulating more interactivity with online learning communities were among the concerns raised by the students. The biggest concern was e-tutors’ inability to help students to comprehend learning contents that are difficult to understand. The e-tutors usual response of “please refer to the modules” was not helpful at all.

The participants also felt that it is important for e-tutors to have moderation skills in order to effectively run the e-forum. They suggested that there should be a timeframe for e-tutors to respond to questions in the e-forum, for instance within 24 hours. The teaching presence construct was the most important construct in comparison with social and cognitive constructs.

4. CONCLUSION

Adult and lifelong learning can happen without a teacher’s presence. The advance of technology has enabled the online learning happen without teacher’s presence. In order to make this happen, the online courses must be systematically designed if the objectives are to be realized. CoI offers the best model of online teaching because it takes learning styles such as visual, audio, kinaesthetic, logical and social into consideration (Lacey & Lawson, 2013). The possible threat that hinders the online learning process is the ecosystem infrastructure, especially in terms of internet bandwidth. In general terms, the keywords represented in CoI are applicable to be used in Malaysian context and in fact, has already been implemented by a local online institution. Technologies are there to be explored, hence the exploration of more online learning related models and the deeper inquiry of CoI model are recommended in order to expand the knowledge horizon of this discipline.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was funded by the Faculty of Education and the National Research Grant Challenge, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) (Dana Cabaran Perdana) under the project code GG2018-011 and DCP-2017-202/3 respectively. The authors would also like to express special thanks to the team members, graduate and research assistants for their help and contribution in conducting this project.

REFERENCIAS

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf

Baharudin, H., Nasir, M. K. M., Yusoff, N. M. R. N., & Surat, S. (2018). Assessing Students’ Course Satisfaction with Online Arabic Language Hybrid Course. Advanced Science Letters, 24, 350-352. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.12005

Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International journal on e-learning, 3(1), 61-67.

Cobb, S. C. (2011). Social presence, satisfaction, and perceived learning of RN-to-BSN students in Web-Based nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 115-119. doi:10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.115 Coffey & Atkinson (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314-324.

Demiray, U., Vainio, L., Sahin, M. C., Kurubacak, G., T Lounaskorpi, P., Rao, S. R., & Machado, C. (Ed.). (2010). Cases on challenges facing e-learning and national development: Institutional studies and practices. Eskisehir-Turkey: Anadolu University.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 8-105. doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010a). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5-9. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010b). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31-36. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002

Grady, J. R. (2013). Improving student satisfaction with large-scale, compressed timeline online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 195-208.

Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12.

Howell, G. F., Jeffrey, M., & Buck, J. M. (2012). The adult student and course satisfaction: What matters most?. Innovation High Education, 37, 215–226. doi:10.1007/s10755-011-9201-0

Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia [KPTM]. (2013). Indikator Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia 2013 Retrieved from http://www. mohe.gov.my/web_statistik/Indikator_Pengajian_Tinggi_Mala ysia_2013.pdf

Khalid, N. M., & Quick, D. (2016). Teaching Presence Influencing Online Students’ Course Satisfaction at an Institution of Higher Education. International Education Studies, 9, 62. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n3p62

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lacey, S., & Lawson, R. (2013). Multisensory imagery. New York: Springer. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mohammad, R., Jamaluddin, K., Suradi, N. R. M., & Mohamed, H. (2014). The perception on the importance and satisfaction of UKM lecturers towards elearning utilization. In M. A. Abdullah, W. K. Yahya, N. Ramli, S. R. Mohamed, & B. E. Ahmad (Eds.) Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (pp. 531-542). doi:10.1007/978-981-10-1458-1_49

Nasir, M. K. M., Surat, S., Maat, S. M., Abd Karim, A., & Daud, Md. Y. (2018). Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the Sub-Construct of Teaching Presence’s in the Community of Inquiry. Creative Education, 9, 2245-2253. doi:10.4236/ce.2018.914165

Nordin, N., & Norman, H. (2018). Cross-culture learning via massive open online courses for higher education. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia 43(1)(2018): 35-39. doi:10.17576/JPEN-2018-43.01-05

Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77-98. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1702_2

Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 141-147. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.001

So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2007.05.009

Spears, L. R. (2012). Social presence, social interaction, collaborative learning, and satisfaction in online and face-to-face courses (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses: Full text (Order No. 3548436)

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. doi:10.1080/0158791010220208

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, doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2014.12.001.

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. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45-52. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.004.

Zhan, Z., & Mei, H. (2013). Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students’ learning achievement and satisfaction across environments. Computer & Education, 69, 131-138. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.002

Información adicional

CITAR: Nasir, M. K. M., & Zamri Mansor, A. (2019). Discussion on online courses from the point of view of the research community. Religación. Revista De Ciencias Sociales Y Humanidades, 4(19), 106-110. Retrieved from https://revista.religacion.com/index.php/religacion/article/view/441