Measuring Learning Presence as Fourth Dimension in the Community of Inquiry Survey: Defining Self-Regulation Items and Subscales through a Heutagogical Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The contribution presents very interesting research and intends to present the validation of an tool, in particular the validation of a new subscale of an existing tool.

There are, however, some issues that the authors should reflect on:

1) the validation was carried out on two very small samples: 21 and 53 cases (attention: the number in the abstract does not correspond): it is very difficult to imagine the validity of the factors identified on such small samples!

The authors must take this aspect into account and highlight it in the discussion of the data and the weaknesses of the research.

Regarding factor analyses, it would be necessary to know whether the initial significance tests (for example Bartlett's Test of Sphericity?)

2) About to point 1): the authors must clearly describe the methods of administration of the questionnaire and analyze its strengths and weaknesses

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok

Some spelling errors

Author Response

The contribution presents very interesting research and intends to present the validation of an tool, in particular the validation of a new subscale of an existing tool.

There are, however, some issues that the authors should reflect on:

1) the validation was carried out on two very small samples: 21 and 53 cases (attention: the number in the abstract does not correspond): it is very difficult to imagine the validity of the factors identified on such small samples!

The primary sample of the research consists of 55 students and it is the sample involved with the “extended version” of the CoI questionnaire. The other 2 samples mentioned in the text (n=21 & n=53) are associated with a "preparatory" experience using the “classic questionnaire” and, therefore, were not mentioned in the abstract, as they are secondary.

Concerning the observation about the matter of “validation”, the manuscript aim is not to “validate” the extended version of the new CoI questionnaire. In fact, the term "validation" is only used when referring to all authors who experiment with and validate modifications to the original questionnaire or to the statistic procedures. Our firsthand experience is described through the paradigm of exploration, adaptation and investigation. The fifth and sixth sections of the manuscript clarify that only experimentation, not “validation”, of a new questionnaire is being conducted. It should also be noted that neither the title, the abstract, nor the conclusions mention the concept of “validation” and our article aims to serve as a trigger for further debate. I hope this clarify the reviewer’s doubts.

The authors must take this aspect into account and highlight it in the discussion of the data and the weaknesses of the research.

We have added some passages to further highlight the limitations of the research. It should be noted, however, that the paper aims only to "explore" a new version of the CoI questionnaire. Therefore, the limitations were inherent, as this is an initial exploratory experience. Anyway, we enhanced the concept of limitations.

Regarding factor analyses, it would be necessary to know whether the initial significance tests (for example Bartlett's Test of Sphericity?)

The Bartlett's test of Sphericity has been included in the manuscript, at the beginning of the 5^th section (pag. 17).

2) About to point 1): the authors must clearly describe the methods of administration of the questionnaire and analyze its strengths and weaknesses

Additional details regarding the methods of distributing the questionnaires have been included.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok

Some spelling errors

A further grammar check has been performed.

Submission Date

07 June 2024

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article a fourth dimension Learning presence was added to the COI framework. Adjustments to the original model were investigated. Analysis of internal correlations of this extended survey, revealed positive expectations and opportunities for further adaptations. The analysis is conducted thoroughly and adequately.

I read your eloquent written article with great interest. I find the suggested addition of LP to the COI framework an important addition to the literature and ongoing discussion in academia. 

I have some really minor points that need attention. Improve readibility of section 5. MEASURING the ENTIRE framework with 4 presences.

Author Response

In this article a fourth dimension Learning presence was added to the COI framework. Adjustments to the original model were investigated. Analysis of internal correlations of this extended survey, revealed positive expectations and opportunities for further adaptations. The analysis is conducted thoroughly and adequately.

I read your eloquent written article with great interest. I find the suggested addition of LP to the COI framework an important addition to the literature and ongoing discussion in academia. 

I have some really minor points that need attention. Improve readibility of section 5. MEASURING the ENTIRE framework with 4 presences.

Thank you for the observation. We have reorganized some paragraphs in the 5^th section, using a more discursive and less schematic style, to improve readability.