Asynchronous Posting and Reading both Reflect Communities of Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive case study explored the presence of a community of inquiry among 4492 secondary learners enrolled in four asynchronous online discussion forums over a full year. The forums (Ethics and Philosophy, Reading, Astronomy and Space, and General Debates, among others not studied) were external to the students’ schools across England. The data had been archived by the sponsoring organisation. We coded 3,113 transcribed messages posted or read by students using Garrison’s Community-of-Inquiry model and coding tools--addressing social, cognitive, and teaching presence within the interactions, plus 307 online questionnaire responses from a cross-section of participants about reasons for posting or not and overall participation plus representative quotes were also presented. Of the 4,492 enrollees, 1,523 (34%) posted messages, 1,748 (39%) only read or viewed posts, and 1,222 (27%) never logged in. This posting rate was almost quadruple the rate previously reported for online communities. Participation was also wider. The largest numbers of messages reflected community-of-inquiry social presence, especially following-up others’ messages. Cognitive presence particularly reflected sharpening thinking skills and knowledge. Teaching presence included asking stimulating questions and providing encouragement. Students who only viewed others’ messages logged in frequently, reported stimulation and strong benefits in learning skills, and only occasionally reported shyness or intimidation. Active student participation and engagement include more than posting messages; they also include reading or viewing others’ posts. Community of inquiry was highly evident in the asynchronous, secondary, online setting. An asynchronous platform, with effective teaching presence, can support important qualities of a community of inquiry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".