Guidelines for Supporting a Community of Inquiry through Graded Online Discussion Forums in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the author(s) for submitting their work to the journal. 

Firstly, there is a confusing use of concepts in the manuscript. The study is about the benefits of online discussion forums for "learners'" skill development and the effectiveness of learning. However, the title and the used concepts such as "students", "educators" etc. are confusing about the content of the study. 

The title maybe be modified as... graded online discussion forums in higher education, because the word "students" are used too many times in the whole manuscript. All online learning programs/courses are not including only students, but learners from different ages and demographic backgrounds. I strongly suggest the author(s) review the misuse of concepts in the manuscript if they do not mention "higher education" in the title. 

Secondly, the literature review in the introduction and the theoretical background sections must be improved with up-to-date references from key scholars in the field. Additionally, non of the paragraphs should finish with citations, and author(s) need to add their contributions for the internal coherence of the paragraphs. 

Another key issue about the literature in the manuscript is that many of the determinations about the concepts such as discussion forums, COI, etc. should be supported by references. Author(s) disparate without any sound references about the effect of online discussion forums (ODF) on learners' and instructors' interaction. 

The definition of the interaction should be reviewed, as the definition misses out on the standard definition of learner-to-learner, instructor-to-learner, machine-to-learner, and vice versa. I strongly recommend the author(s) review the literature on interaction in online learning environments again. 

In addition, the definition of social presence in online learning should be rewritten again to include a wider perspective. 

The citations in the whole manuscript should be seriously reviewed. For instance, line  58 of the manuscript has a sentence starting with only the reference number ( "[9] contented that...). Many of the same mistakes reside in the whole manuscript which makes it unreadable as the reader goes back and forth to the references section many times. 

The materials and Methods section should be rewritten to express the research design supported with visuals about the participant selection, data collection, and analysis processes. We understand that Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach is used as a method when we read line 244 in the findings because of wrong referencing in the whole manuscript. 

The findings are not discussed in parallel with the up-to-date literature which is the main weakness of the study. The most up-to-date references in the papers date back to 2022 (3 times) and the rest date almost a decade ago. 

The conclusion part is unsatisfactory for the reader as it does not include implications,  and references to the literature and gives a list of suggestions without an argument. The whole section should be revised. 

 

 

 

There are some wording issues and passive voice misuse. I recommend author(s) to have a proofreading of the manuscript before the second review submission.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for the comments . Please find our corrections in the attached table of corrections 

Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sharing your work. Please see some comments below for your consideration to enhance the paper:

Abstract: Consider restructuring it, showing purpose, methods, findings, and recommendations/implications. For instance, before mentioning the aim of the study, it will be beneficial to highlight the issues necessitating the study. Based on the findings should also come after the results have been revealed.

Introduction: P.1, Lines 33-35: Values of online discussion have been well-documented in the literature, including some publications in Education Sciences. The purpose of the study needs to be explicitly and thoroughly discussed using the extant literature and showing the gap that the study seeks to address. What are the contributions of 1.1 and 1.2 to the study? How is the theoretical framework (1.3) applied in the research, and what are the issues emanating from the theory's application?

Methodology: Justification of the research methods need more information. Triangulation as a concept needs more explanation on how it was applied. Participants' numbers should be highlighted as a limitation, and justification of the number using extant literature should be considered. Ethical considerations should be highlighted in addition to the ethical clearance revealed. For instance, did the participants consent to be involved in the study?

Findings: This section should be arranged in line with the analysis approach used and show the key results.

Discussion: This section should be included in the paper. Alternatively, the findings can be discussed along with the results using the existing literature.

Conclusion: This section should include a conclusion, implications/recommendations, study limitations, and focus areas for further studies.

 

I hope you find the comments helpful.

 

All the best!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2 

Thank you for your comments. Please find attached our corrections in the attached table.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presented a qualitative study that thematically coded student’s feedback/reflection on their own learning experiences, by adopting the Community of Inquiry (COI) framework. The COI framework defined the three key components – social, teaching, and cognitive presences, in developing and sustaining online learning community. The authors used it as the lens to decipher their master’s students’ learning experiences in online graded discussions, following a six-phase thematic analysis approach. They then presented five sub-themes identified from the student’s feedback and derived several guidelines for using graded online discussions to public readers. The study serves potential as an addition to empirical examples of the use of COI in online learning.

General concept comments

Data collection and analysis – The authors mentioned two data sets (under 3.2. Data collection): (1) student’s learning experience/feedback in the online discussions, and (2) the actual online discussions of the module. The authors stated that the second data set was meant to be used for ‘triangulation purposes’ (line 215-216). However, it is unclear which and how the second data set was used in this submission as most, if not all, of the quotes cited was mostly of student’s learning experience/feedback. The authors would need to be explicit and demonstrate how the second data set helps in ‘triangulate’ their claims.

Trustworthiness (Section 3.4.) – The authors declared that member checking, where research findings and interpretations were shared with the participants. Currently, the section was merely descriptive statements about the value of involving participants in data analysis. The authors would like to consider to explain in exact how they had benefited from their sharing of information with participants (e.g. better clarity of participant’s intention or responses?), and in turn increase the ‘trustworthiness’ of their findings.

Theme 3 Cognitive presence – The authors reviewed that cognitive presence in COI refers to learners participating in a cycle of practical inquiry (line 154) through ‘exploration, integration, and application’ of knowledge. It may be worth to explore and present the learner’s feedback under cognitive presence following this cycle of practical inquiry to better guide the readers in their findings.

Suggested guidelines – Based on their data analysis and findings, the authors proposed several guidelines for graded online discussions. It may be useful to further sub-categorize these guidelines according to the COI framework, i.e. separate into social, teaching and cognitive presences so to tight the submission better. Moreover, consider providing working examples in these guidelines, e.g. ‘accommodate different learning styles’, what can an instructor do to accommodate learners with different learning styles. These suggestions would greatly increase the quality and takeaways of the submission.

 

Specific comments

In-text quote – The labelling of in-text participant quotes was inconsistent. Check line 256 (Participant 3 was stated as p3), line 273 (p.6), line 316 (p9), line 337-343 (no indication of which participant).

Reference list – The formatting of the reference list was unprofessional: the journal name for some references were not italic or formatted according to required referencing style. Reference 28 and 29 were a same reference. 

The language used in this submission is fluent and easy to comprehend. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3 

Thank you for the comments and opportunity to revise the manuscript attached pleas find the table with corrections 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the author(s) for the effort to revise the manuscript. The paper is now more readable and academically sound. All the reviews were taken into consideration by the author(s). The paper is sufficient for publishing in its present form. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your efforts. The manuscript is strengthened in its present form. You may wish to read the piece a couple of times and further edit it where necessary.

All the best.

Minor edits required

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors had put in efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. They responded to the reviewers' points and the overall structure of the article is now clearer.