# data[].attributes.headline
Great Ideas for Fostering Motivation and Engagement in Online Classes

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Ideas for Fostering Motivation and Engagement in Online Classes

# data[].attributes.body
Click here to access the website: https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/motivation.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Selby Cull, Washington University in St. Louis
Don Reed, Dept. of Geology, San Jose State University
Karin Kirk, Science Education Resource Center
authored as part of the 2010 workshop, Teaching Geoscience Online - A Workshop for Digital Faculty
Jump down to: The Nature of Online Learners | Pedagogic Design | Instructor Behavior | References and Resources

The challenge of keeping our students engaged and motivated is common across grade levels, subject matter, and all types of institutions and courses. Online courses, however, present a special concern. With students and faculty in contact only via the internet several new challenges arise.

Without face-to-face contact, faculty are not able to pick up nonverbal cues from students that can indicate they are disengaged, frustrated or unenthusiastic.

Faculty also cannot share their emotions easily and may find it harder to express enthusiasm, encouragement or concern.

The anonymous feeling of the online environment can make it easier for students to withdraw, participate minimally, or completely disappear from the course.

Students may enroll in online courses because they feel they will be easier and require less of their time. So before the course even begins, these students may be prone to disengagement.

On the other hand, there are several advantages to the online environment that make it easier to engage students.

The self-paced nature of online courses allows students to fit the work time into their schedule. Those who prefer to login to the course at midnight are free to do so!

Extrinsically motivated students can be engaged with quizzes and interactive features that offer instant feedback

The web offers tremendous possibilities for flexibility, interactivity and creativity. It is possible to create many types of engaging experiences.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Background: The Nature of Online Learners

Online learners are a varied group, but there are commonalities that can assist instructors in developing effective strategies in course design and pedagogical approach. In particular, these students desire a flexible schedule to achieve their educational goals through self-paced learning while juggling the other demands on their time.

The requirements of self-paced learning - self discipline, effective time management, writing skills, self-directed work, organization and prioritization of effort, and confidence in presenting ideas openly and recognizing gaps in understanding through self assessment and reflection.

Type of students we serve - online students range from fast-tracked, high achievers to students currently on academic probation who may take courses through continuing education. The average age of students is generally older and there is higher percentage of female students than in the offering institution as a whole.

Study habits - many online students have multiple demands on their time, causing odd, sometimes irregular, hours online. Multiple and sometimes competing obligations are squeezed into their daily schedule (other courses, accelerated graduation schedule, work, travel and family), consequently online coursework may not always be their top priority, causing assignments to be pushed aside to last minute, especially in general education courses.

Pedagogic Design for Engagement

Do not limit your course web pages to blocks of dense text and sparse images. There are many ways to create an engaging design for your course pages. Rely on use of imagery, video, audio, music and interactive features. If possible, work with an instructional designer to create these features.

Use video of yourself introducing course content, as in this video of Course Information (link down)

Use video of exciting topics in your course, such as this video of the La Conchita Landslide

Use real-time, web-based data such as USGS streamflow network, NOAA offshore buoy measurements and drifter buoys, recent earthquakes or climate data.

Have students take on the role of a geoscientist in virtual research activities, patterned after major research initiatives in the geosciences, real-time data or online databases. Example activity - Tracking Drifter Buoys

Case studies can involve role-playing, the use of maps and data sets and opportunities to synthesize various materials around a central topic (see a collection of 38 role playing scenarios for the classroom)

Applications of course concepts to your own home town. (such as Environmental Geology of the Area where you Live)

Ask for students' input on class topics and assignments (Dennis et al. 2007)

Use of "gateway" assignments, which students must complete before proceeding in the course can be effective in some situations.

Adopt instructional methods that emphasize "guiding students toward their own discoveries of facts and relationships" (Alutu 2006) (Such as, "While you're reading this assignment, think about how it relates to _____.")

Use discussion boards to create a sense of community and promote active engagement with the course topics (Using Discussions in an Environmental Geology Course

Create course topics and readings that are current. Incorporate recent news events and magazine articles into existing course topics (Dennis et al. 2007).

Assign roles in discussion assignments , especially for provocative discussions based on current events, case studies or policy issues.

Students are assigned a one-week time period to initiate a discussion about climate change in the news. On their assigned week, the designated student finds a current article that relates to climate change. They start a discussion thread that contains the following:

Title and URL of article

Summary of article, written in their own words

Description of how the article ties in to the course material

A series of questions for classmates to answer, such as asking for opinion on policy measures, or seeking observations of a certain element of climate change.

The student then moderates the discussion and responds to their classmates.

Set up peer groups - extrinsically motivated students are motivated by achievement in relation to their peers; intrinsically motivated students are able to interact with peer groups to gain more insight - both types of students benefit from working in peer groups. (Moore 2006)

Create a part of the discussion board that is for students only - no instructors allowed.

Pair the students into "support pairs" with well-defined instructions on how to support each other throughout the course.

Early on, explicitly model how to give constructive feedback so that students can follow this model.

Conscious development of metacognition Dennis et al. (2007) suggest posting a primer on metacognition on a discussion thread, and to return to the concept throughout the course. (Find out more about The Role of Metacognition in Teaching Geoscience)

If possible, hold a face-to-face meeting for a critical activity such as a field trip

Instructor Behavior to Promote Engagement
Setting Expectations

Create explicit course and activity goals (Ames 1992) - students feel more motivated to put effort into a course that they deem worthwhile. If the course goals are explicitly laid out, students can more accurately judge if they are worthwhile.

Illustrate that you believe students can achieve these goals, and that these are goals worth achieving.

Illustrate how these goals connect to each other, and to outside topics.

Periodically ask students to assess their own progress on these goals

Clearly communicate work/learning expectations before class begins. Using video is an effective way to do this.

Provide study strategy tips from successful students in previous classes.

Create a detailed syllabus with assignment information, format of class, course and assignment schedule and advice for completing work . If possible, link assignments and policies directly from the syllabus so students don't have to search for this information.

Keep the course website updated with notifications of units that are opening, closing or changing.

Create a short video to initiate each new activity. this provides a personalizes introduction to the work.

Use a syllabus survey/course policies quiz at beginning of semester, which can be a gateway to assignments (see an example Syllabus Quiz)

Set up a consistent timetable for work each week , so that deadlines are predictable.

Log in often, respond quickly, and convey genuine enthusiasm (Crumpacker 2001)

Because so much communication is done via the typed word, choose your wording to deliberately reach out to students

Let me know if you've got questions.

vs.

I'm happy to help with your questions. It's best if you can touch base well before the deadline so we can sort through any questions before the weekend.

Start a weekly thread on "Tips & Tricks", where students can post suggestions for their classmates.

Allow students to develop self-efficacy. Recognize when a student has done a particularly good job on a task, or has dramatically improved on a skill. (Kerssen-Griep 2003) "Ensure an early success for each student; praise and document it." (Dennis et al. 2007)

There are many ways to stay in touch with your students. If you are facile with multiple modes of communication, use whichever one students prefer. Aim for Frequent and regular contact, each week, especially if student is falling behind.

Try video Skype or video iChat for one-one discussion and interaction

Set up a Facebook page for your course. This can be a separate Facebook account from your personal page, allowing you to keep your personal page independent from your professional one.

Encourage personal interactions (Hutchins 2003, Arbaugh 2001)

Introduce yourself with a photo and an "About Me" blurb

Ask students to post a photo of themselves, and a blurb about themselves

Individual students or small groups of students can create web pages or PowerPoint files of images, maps of where they live and topics that interest them. These can be shared with the class via an online gallery walk.

Carrot (intellectual stimulation) and stick (consistent deadline with clear expectations and consequences with a well-defined late policy for all assignments)

Late Policy
Work turned in late: Assignments are due on the date specified in the course schedule. If you turn in work after a deadline, I will subtract 2 points for each day the assignment is late.

Extensions: If you know you are going to have a conflict, please contact me before the due date to arrange for an extension. In most cases I can give you an extension without any late penalty. If you ask for an extension after the due date, I'll subtract late points from the due date to the date that the extension was requested. Of course, I understand that genuine emergencies do arise. Please keep me in the loop and I will do my best to be understanding.

Completion of work acknowledgment to instructor for every assignment

Provide timely, specific and personalized assessments for each assignment.

Instead of written feedback for each assignment, try using video/audio tracks for giving feedback for assignments. Jing is a simple, free program that can be used to create a narrated screen capture. Using a screen capture video you can "point" to various parts of an assignment and record verbal feedback.

Helpful Web Resources

How to Motivate Online Students This page offers straightforward tips to keep your online students engaged, such as helping a shy student get involved in an online discussion, or to using creative assignments, and offering additional encouragement via email.

How to Motivate Your Students from eLearn Magazine.
This article presents several suggestions for variety within assignments, ways to reach out to students and methods to engage students in roles that appeal to them.

Motivating Students to Participate in Online Discussions (pdf document) This handout from the University of Calgary offers guidelines about setting expectations, giving the students responsibility, and keeping the discussion content relevant with the rest of the course. (has links to other resources)

References

Alutu (2006) The guidance role of the instructor in the teaching and learning process. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 65, 44-49.

Ames (1992) Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Arbaugh (2001) How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly. 65, 42-54.

Crumpacker (2001) Faculty pedagogical approach, skill, and motivation in today's distance education milieu. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 4:4.

Dennis et al. (2007) The little engine that could - How to start the motor? Motivating the online student. Insight2: http://insightjournal.net/?page_id=146

Hutchins (2003) Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.

Kerssen-Griep et al. (2003) Sustaining the desire to learn: Dimensions of perceived instructional facework related to student involvement and motivation to learn. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 357-361.

Moore (2006) Collaboration online: Sloan-C Resources. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10, 81-89.

Northup (2002) Online learners' preferences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 219-226.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teach the earth:enhancing your teaching:online teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Selby Cull, Washington University in St. Louis Don Reed, Dept. of Geology, San Jose State University Karin Kirk, Science Education Resource Center authored as part of the 2010 workshop, Teaching Geoscience ...

# data[].attributes.body
According to a 2010 study with graduate students, group work is viewed with more negativity than in a face-to-face learning context.
Click here to access the article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096751610000709

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This study compared student group work experiences in online (OL) versus face-to-face (f2f) sections of the same graduate course, over three years, to determine what factors influence student group work experiences and how do these factors play out in f2f versus OL environments. Surveys and student journals suggest that communication issues, personal feelings about group members and their participation play a prominent role in student perceptions about group work. Students in OL sections were more negative about group work, than were students in f2f sections. Because of OL norms of working individually and asynchronously, OL students were less satisfied with group work. Also, because of fewer channels of communication, lack of the immediacy of f2f meetings and other differences in the two learning environments, OL students were less able to resolve logistical difficulties associated with group work.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study compared student group work experiences in online (OL) versus face-to-face (f2f) sections of the same graduate course, over three years, to determine what factors influence student group work experiences and how do these factors play out in f2f versus OL environments.

# data[].attributes.body
If learning is to be meaningfully constructed, it must have worth for the individual learner. This value arises most easily if learning takes place in authentic. Authentic learning is an instructional approach that allows students to explore, discuss, and meaningfully construct concepts and relationships in contexts that involve real-world problems and projects that are relevant to the learner (Drone, 2014: 43).

# data[].attributes.headline
Multiple Perspectives and Engagement that Includes Dialogue

# data[].attributes.subject
Multiple Perspectives and Engagement that Includes Dialogue

# data[].attributes.body
Since knowledge is both individually and socially constructed, it follows that there must be opportunity, reason, and capacity for individuals to share, debate, and
discuss their understandings. Individually, discussion is used to validate knowledge construction and to test its veracity against the understandings of others (Drone, 2014: 43)

# data[].attributes.body
There have been many attempts to examine the history of distance learning in terms of dominant technologies (e.g., Bates, 2005; Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). We have taken a slightly different tack, looking instead at the evolution of pedagogies in distance learning (T. Anderson & Dron, 2011). We consider each generation to be partly
determined by the communication and processing tools available, and partly by the popular pedagogies of the period, noting that changes in each one alters the adjacent possibilities and thus both the affordances and uses of the other. These are the three generations that we have identified as emerging so far:
1. Behaviourist/cognitivist: pedagogies of instruction
2. Social constructivist: pedagogies of construction
3. Connectivist: pedagogies of connection (Drone, 2014: 37)

# data[].attributes.body
the major learning theories that influence the development of social learning activity, culture, and research. For each theory we will focus on the environment or the context in which learning takes place. Until recently, most literature on social learning assumed that the interaction between participants takes place face-to-face, and classroom. Remember that it is possible to use any learning technology well or badly, regardless of the type. It makes no more sense to ask whether people learn better at a distance or face-to-face than to ask whether pictures drawn in pencil are better than ones painted with oils (Dron, 2014: 36)

# data[].attributes.headline
How does being part of a COP allow me to incorporate my new knowledge of connected learning?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does being part of a COP allow me to incorporate my new knowledge of connected learning?

# data[].attributes.body
Connected Learning as defined by Ito et al (2020) "is learning that connects personal interests, supportive relationships, and academic, civic, and career opportunity". Educators have to understand that current student cohorts come with an abundance of resources and information at their fingertips. We need to adjust our teaching practices to provide a more authentic experience to students. This authenticity is not only linked to business problems (if a management student) but that their learning can be intertwined with all areas of their lives. Now this is definitely easier said than done because educators have a curriculum to get through that does not necessarily provide time for true connected learning. But the point is for us as educators to be aware of and attempt to, where possible, consider all areas of our students lives when we teach. We need to attempt to transform our own thinking and to make those connections for ourselves. CoP's can provide us with this. Again we can learn from others who are leaders in this field and build our own skill sets so we can model the behaviour of a connected learner.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does being part of a COP change my experience as an online student?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does being part of a COP change my experience as an online student?

# data[].attributes.body
I would not have been able to do this course without my CoP. I have shifted my views from being a selfish student only focused on my own goals and objectives, to incorporating new objectives that benefit me and the team. I am more conscious of my need to be a global digital citizen and that my success is linked to the success of my peers. Many people do not want to study online because they fear that they cannot cope on their own. Learning online has evolved to the extent that it is expected that you will not take the journey alone and that others are there for you to walk this academic journey with you. We need to encourage our students to connect and reach out to each other and facilitate them building their own CoP's.

# data[].attributes.body
Capsim (2015) sums up what we as educators can do to combat social loafing:

1. Implement peer and team reviews early.

2. Provide guidance on how to be a better team member.

3. Promote self-reflection that leads to self-improvement.

4. Empower team members with open communication.

“Social loafing is an issue that must be addressed early on" (Capsim, 2015)

All educators are faced with the issue of social loafing and we must remember, so are the fellow students. Students are stressed by the pressures of exams, and due to the growth of collaborative work and PBL, they are now further stressed by having to deal with social loafers in group work (Dron and Anderson, 2014).

How does a CoP help? If you are an educator this issue will remain a hot topic in any CoP you are part of. It's important to learn from others and to make the choice to actively address the problem as the semester start. Learn from others as to how to put measures in place that are working for your peers.

# data[].attributes.headline
CoP and building confidence and competence in students

# data[].attributes.subject
CoP and building confidence and competence in students

# data[].attributes.body
As educators we have to build confidence and competencies in students. We play a role in then becoming global digital citizens. We need to lead by example by being confident and competent ourselves. This means continually upskilling ourselves and ensuring we stay abreast of changes in the educational landscape. Being part of a CoP allows educators to connect with other practitioners and other stakeholders in education as well as engage in facilitated meetings and discuss topics of interest, share working practice and resources  and collaborate in innovative ways (Bridge, 2021).

As we learn more about ourselves as educators and become more confident and competent, this will translate into our teaching practice and give us the skills and tools to do the same for our students.

# data[].attributes.body
Dron and Anderson (2014) define a Community of Practice as "  a number of people in a network who share a purpose, practice, and often location, but without the explicit hierarchies, exclusions, and roles of a more defined group."

How does being part of a CoP enable lecturers to:
-build academic confidence and competencies in students?
-discourage students from being 'social loafers?

How does being part of a COP change my experience as an online student?

How does the being part of a COP allow me to incorporate my new knowledge of connected learning

# data[].attributes.body
Click here to access a Prezi on Connected Learning!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
References Ito, M (2018). P2PU. n.d. Peer to Peer Learning. add logo here And so? How is it different to traditional learning? 4 Requirements for Connected Learning (Ito, 2018): What is Connected Learning? 1. Image: P2PU Must: Be production-centred. Prioritise sponsorship of

# data[].attributes.headline
What do you think as educators we can do to motivate students?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do you think as educators we can do to motivate students?

# data[].attributes.body
Sometimes, we need a bit of lighthearted humour to help students and educators see the value in group work. This motivational video can help students and educators to see why teamwork is so important in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teamwork can make a Dreamwork -  best ever motivational short film on youtube

# data[].attributes.body
Group work can bring out the best and worst in people, and many shy away from group work because of the animosity it can cause. This short video gives great advice on how to ensure equal and engaged participation throughout the group work process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tips for Great Group Work in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
In this article we are able to see what motivational factors influence students in the online environment.

# data[].attributes.body
One fundamental way that CoI can be encouraged in students is through group work, and more specifically, through projects which span over a longer period of time. While some worry about some of the pitfalls of group work, there are definite strengths to the process. Have a look at this article which has studied the relationship between CoI and online project based learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
, Pengyue Guo , Nadira Saab ,

Mental Health Education Center, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, China
Search for more papers by this author
Wilfried Admiraal ,

ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this author

ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this author

Corresponding Author

ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Correspondence
Pengyue Guo, ICLON, Leiden University, Kolffpad 1, 2333 BN Leiden, The Netherlands.

Email: p.guo@iclon.leidenuniv.nl
Search for more papers by this author

Funding information: China Scholarship Council, Grant/Award Number: 201706310134; Huaqiao University, Grant/Award Number: 20JF-JXGZ20

Abstract

Project-based learning (PjBL) engages students in knowledge acquisition, application, and construction through artefact development. Based on the Community of Inquiry framework, this study characterized college students' social and cognitive presences in online PjBL and examined how presence was related to their academic performance. Twenty-four groups of students participated in a 3-week project via WeChat discussion groups and created a final product. Transcripts of students' online discourse were collected and analysed by a coding scheme. The quality of students' artefacts was evaluated by a grading rubric. Descriptive results showed that the component of affectiveness and the level of exploration accounted for the majority of students' social and cognitive presences, respectively. Stepwise regression analyses revealed that certain components and sub-components of students' social presence, and levels and sub-levels of their cognitive presence were positively associated with their academic performance. Practical implications for teachers and suggestions for further research are provided.

Lay Description

What is already known about this topic

Social and cognitive presences predict academic performance in non-project-based online learning.

What this paper adds

Various components of social presence predict group artefact performance in online project-based learning.

Different levels of cognitive presence predict group artefact performance in online project-based learning.

Implications for practice and/or policy

Students should acquire basic content knowledge before participating in online project-based discussions.

Teachers might consider assisting students with the direction of online project-based discussions.

1 INTRODUCTION

Project-based learning (PjBL) indicates an inquiry-based teaching and learning method that engages students in knowledge acquisition, application and construction through the completion of authentic projects and the creation of real-world artefacts (Krajcik & Shin, ; Thomas, ). Chen and Yang () confirmed in their meta-analysis research that PjBL could be considered as an alternative pedagogy to traditional, teacher-centred instruction in primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Guo et al. () also revealed that PjBL, as a promising approach in higher education, is positively related to student cognitive, affective, and behavioural learning outcomes. During PjBL, learners usually work in small groups and collaboratively explore projects with peers (Chen & Yang, ; Dado & Bodemer, ). In order to facilitate learners to involve in this learning process, it might be helpful to adopt computer-supported technologies (Thomas & McGregor, ). Previous studies have mainly investigated student social and cognitive presences in online PjBL with computer-supported systems and tools under the guidance of different theories and models (e.g. Heo et al., ; Koh et al., ; Lin et al., ; Wu et al., ; Wu & Hou, ). To investigate students' social presence, Heo et al. () and Wu et al. () adopted the Interaction Analysis Model (IAM) proposed by Gunawardena et al. (). To explore students' cognitive presence, Lin et al. (), Wu et al. (), and Wu and Hou () used the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl (). Koh et al. () analysed both students' social and cognitive presences based on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., ). Still, few empirical data are available about students' social and cognitive presences during online PjBL and how these presences affect the quality of the final products students develop.

Some studies about students' online interaction in higher education have claimed that knowledge construction can occur through the social and cognitive exchanges of ideas in learners' online discourse (Agudo-Peregrina et al., ; Garrison et al., ). Studies that are based on the CoI framework have shown that both lower levels (e.g. Meyer, ; Shea et al., ; Vaughan & Garrison, ) and higher levels (e.g. Gašević et al., ; Oh et al., ; Richardson & Ice, ) of cognitive presence are most common in online discourse. These findings might be related to the structure of the problem that students face. Gašević et al. () claimed that learners can achieve higher levels of cognitive presence during online discussions if they work on well-structured rather than ill-structured tasks. However, Koh et al. () found that compared to non-project-based activities, during online PjBL, which is usually ill-structured, students' posts could be reaching more advanced cognitive presence. Moreover, although social presence is critical to the understanding of students' online discussions (Shea et al., ), few studies have investigated it (e.g. Richardson & Ice, ; Vaughan & Garrison, ) or examined it in general (e.g. Galikyan & Admiraal, ; Li & Yu, ; Meyer, ). Furthermore, Picciano () claimed that social presence is more significant when it comes to learning activities that are not just about acquiring knowledge but also constructing new information with peers.

In this study, we aim to characterize student social and cognitive presences in online discussions during PjBL and investigate how they are related to student performance. The findings might help learners to effectively engage in online PjBL and contribute to the enhancement of students' knowledge construction and application.

2 STUDENTS' SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE PRESENCES IN ONLINE DISCUSSIONS

2.1 Community of Inquiry framework

2.2 Levels of social and cognitive presences in online discussions

2.3 Relationship between academic performance and social and cognitive presences

In terms of cognitive presence, Galikyan and Admiraal () explored the relationship between student-teachers' cognitive presence in online discussion and their academic performance. In the online discussion forum, students were asked to reflect on the course materials and connect these to their teaching practice and provide solutions to practical teaching problems. Bloom's Taxonomy was used as a guideline for students to formulate and answer questions. Multiple regression analyses showed that-although the resolution level accounted for a tiny amount of cognitive presence-both integration and resolution were significantly related to student final grades. In another study, Jo et al. () coded students' online posts based on the four levels of cognitive presence and calculated the overall score by giving weight to each level and divided by the total number of posts. The results of the regression analysis revealed that the overall cognitive presence is significantly related to student academic performance. In short, the available studies suggest that student cognitive presence might have influence on academic performance.

2.4 Research questions

The current study is about students' social and cognitive presences and their relationship with students' academic performance in online PjBL. Despite that creating artefacts plays the most distinguishing role in PjBL (Blumenfeld et al., ; Helle et al., ) as artefacts are the representation of the performance of students' knowledge application and construction in PjBL, few studies of PjBL in higher education, according to Guo et al. (), have evaluated the performance of students' final products. For example, in the studies of Chua () and Chua et al. (), students participated in an engineering project and created small dryers for an agricultural client. The quality of the dryer was assessed by a 5-point scoring rubric based on a series of components, such as drying time and product quality. In Papastergiou (), student teachers participated in an educational project and built websites for primary schools as the artefacts. The performance of these websites was evaluated based on five groups of parameters, such as pedagogical, technical and usability variables. The quality of students' group artefacts was evaluated as student academic performance in this study. Since students created artefacts in small groups, we focus on the relationship at the group level. Thus, the specific research questions are as follows:

1. What components of social presence describe student groups' artefact creation in online discussions?

2. What levels of cognitive presence describe student groups' artefact creation in online discussions?

3. How is student social presence in online discussions related to the artefact performance?

4. How is student cognitive presence in online discussions related to the artefact performance?

3 METHOD

3.1 Research context and sample

This study was based on an 8-week online course of the Introductory Course of Mental Health for the freshmen in a Chinese university. There were two classes (in total 90 min) per week. In the first class of the first week, the course teacher introduced students to the course structure and some basic course requirements (e.g. course check-in). The primary researcher introduced students to the idea, the ethical rules of this study and the PjBL pedagogy and encouraged them to participate in this study. In addition, the researcher and the teacher introduced students to the film analysis project adopted in this course. This project aimed to help students better acquire and apply the content knowledge and eventually construct new information via the creation of a film analysis report. They also provided students with the grading criteria for the report and some suggested steps to complete the report, such as to first form small groups and create private WeChat groups, to select the film to be analysed and the theory to be used, and to discuss how to write each part based on the grading criteria.

Afterwards, for students, in the first to the third week, they were required to watch 26 recorded instruction videos in six chapters on the MOOC platform of the university. These videos contained basic content knowledge that students needed to learn and they were free to choose the watching sequence. They also needed to complete the quizzes in each chapter and asked questions to other students and the teacher, and had discussions on these questions. Meanwhile, students participated in the film analysis project and created an artefact (i.e. a film analysis report) in small groups. To this end, students were first asked to watch four films provided and choose one of them for further analysis. Since the aim of this course was not about professional film analysis, students did not analyse the entire film. They only needed to select certain clips of that film and analyse them based on the topics and theories that they learned from the online videos. During the whole process, students were asked to discuss everything about the project in their WeChat groups. The teacher mainly reminded students to log in the course every week and answered students' questions about the videos on the MOOC platform.

In weeks 4 to 7, the teacher gave online lectures and students attended these lectures. Students took a final paper-pencil exam in the last week. In total, 24 small groups of 3-4 students ( M age = 19) discussed and wrote the film report. These procedures observed the ethical requirements for educational research. All participants provided consent.

3.2 Data sources

Transcripts of students' messages during the online discussions for the group activity in the 24 WeChat groups were coded regarding social and cognitive presences. Five types of messages were identified, namely text messages, stickers and emojis, uploaded pictures and documents, audio messages, and audio calls. Audio messages were transferred into text messages for the coding and audio calls were excluded for the analysis because no recordings could be reached. Six groups had audio calls to discuss the task.

Since many messages posted were short and incomplete in meaning, in some cases, several messages were first combined to get a complete unit of meaning and then coded. In other cases, a single message was used as the unit of coding. In either case, the guiding principle is to code the units that contained "a single concept, expression or statement" as Strijbos et al. () suggested (p. 37). In total, 8469 units were coded.

Furthermore, the total number of words in each group were calculated ( M = 3162.63, SD = 2936.85), including both text words and non-text words. The proportion of the non-text words of each group are under 5.5% ( M = 3.4; SD = 1.3). The performance of the film analysis report was evaluated by two raters based on a grading rubric to measure the artefact performance.

3.3 Data analysis

3.3.1 Social and cognitive presences

An adapted coding scheme with examples (See Tables 1 and 2) based on the instrument in Shea et al. () was adopted to code all units regarding social presence and cognitive presence. Three components of social presence and their corresponding sub-components were distinguished: (1) affectiveness with five sub-components, (2) open communication with six sub-components, and (3) group cohesion with five sub-components. Four levels of cognitive presence and their corresponding sub-levels were distinguished: (1) Triggering event with two sub-levels, (2) Exploration with four sub-levels, (3) integration with four sub-levels and (4) Resolution with two sub-levels. If a coding unit contained more than one type of message, such as stickers with text on it and text followed by emojis, all types of messages were coded separately.

AF1

Expressing emotions

Conventional expressions of emotion.

Haha or Hahaha

I'm sorry (for)

Thank you (for your work)

Sigh (for)

AF2

Use of humour

Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements, and sarcasm, etc.

AF3

Self-disclosure

Present details of life outside of class.

Expressing vulnerability; includes expressions of likes, dislikes, and preferences.

My high school teacher said that my writing had no focus but only fragmented things.

(The writing) is so difficult, so difficult.

Why did not I find the clip I like?

I wrote badly.

I'm confused.

I might be a fake leader.

I want to praise this movie again. It's great.

The scene of the last film is really beautiful.

AF4

Unconventional expressions of emotion

Emoticons and stickers

Hahahahaha (more than three "ha")

OC1

Continuing a thread

Reply to others' messages with or without quoting (software dependent) rather than starting a new thread.

(Reply to others) your seven o'clock is different from ours.

OC3

Asking questions

Students ask questions of other students or the moderator.

How long do you think you can finish watching the film?

Do you mean that my introduction could be a bit shorter?

Is the title good?

What should I do? Revise or delete it?

OC5

Expressing agreement/disagreement

Expressing echoes that similar situations/problems encountered or not.

I have encountered the same situation.

I have not encountered the same situation.

I have similar problems.

I want to ask as well.

Me, too.

+1

CH5

Course reflection

Reflection on the course itself.

Extension or revision of the original coding scheme.

The example from the original coding scheme.

TE1

Recognize problem

Presenting background information that may culminate in a question or presents a problem/issues.

(According to the project requirements) it seems it's better to analyse clips.

TE2

Sense of puzzlement

Asking questions or messages that take discussion in a new direction.

Okay, let us start with the introduction.

I suddenly realized that we need to submit it next week.

So, what else to discuss? (after a deviation from the discussion)

End of this topic. Let us divide the work.

EX1

Exploration within the online community

Unsubstantiated agreement or disagreement/contradiction of previous ideas; includes "good point" or "I agree" with or without unsubstantiated elaboration.

EX2

Information exchange

I saw the content knowledge related to "hairstyle" in a certain course video.

The teacher said in the public group that we could attach pictures.

The clip that I chose is from min 24 to 70.

The documents of course and task requirement.

EX3

Suggestions for consideration

Let us decide how to write roughly and then divide the work.

Then let us watch this one and discuss later.

Let us think about the title and decide it together.

Let us first think about which clips we are going to analyse.

You guys can think about a few more of (the title).

Let me say it first.

The we decide XXX?

EX4

Offers opinions.

Offers unsupported opinions.

We will not find a theme if the keywords are too scattered.

I think the topic of depression is interesting.

The theme of winter might be related to setbacks.

I think these four (themes) all seem suitable, at the first glance.

(The part of) the choice of film theme and reasons are easy to write.

I think these two films involve a lot of content knowledge, although I do not know what the knowledge is.

(Part of) the uploaded manuscript that is not discussed.

IN1

Integration among groups members

Reference to previous message followed by substantiated agreement or disagreement (I agree/disagree because...)

Building on, adding to others' ideas

This is ok. Because if Joy did not abandon Sadness, there would not be the plot that the girl reflects and wakes up.

IN3

Connecting ideas. Synthesis

Integrating information from one or more sources-textbook, articles, personal experience, other posts or peer contributions.

I read some academic articles about depression and integrated into our report.

IN4

Creating solutions

Explicit characterization of message as a solution by participants.

Revised uploaded manuscripts etc. after group discussions.

RE1

Vicarious application to real world testing solutions.

Providing examples of how problems were solved.

RE2

Defending solutions.

Defending why a problem was solved in a specific manner.

Extension or revision of the original coding scheme.

The example from the original coding scheme.

The coding was performed by the first and third authors. Both coders first separately studied the original coding scheme and coded three groups of discourse. After the discussion about each other's codes, the two coders modified the original coding scheme and coded the rest groups of discussions together. A final check was conducted by the first coder.

3.3.2 Artefact performance

The performance of the film analysis report was evaluated by the first and the third authors based on a grading rubric. This rubric included criteria concerning the structures required and the quality. More specifically, the final report grades consisted of weighted scores from three parts, namely content (70%), structure (20%) and semantics (10%). The sub-categories of the content included 16 items, such as "no less than 2500 words," "the introduction is clear" and "clear introduction of subject knowledge." Both structure and semantics had one item. Moreover, if the two raters agreed that there was additional information for extra points, for example, in-text illustrations were adopted, one extra point would be given. A 4-point rubric from 1 (not corresponds) to 4 (corresponds) was adopted. This means that scores for each report could range from 16 to 64 based on the rubric, with some additional points if applicable.

The two evaluators first separately evaluated three groups of the report and checked each other's scores for all items. Since there are only four levels of the score for each item, if the difference of the score of an item given by the two evaluators is greater than 1 point, such as 4 points and 2 points, they discussed this difference and each other's grading criteria and re-scored this item together. Afterwards, they separately evaluated the rest groups of the report and repeated the above-mentioned procedures until all reports were evaluated, checked, discussed and re-scored if necessary.

3.3.3 Analyses

To answer the first two research questions, descriptive statistics were used for the components and sub-components of social presence, and the levels and the sub-levels of cognitive presence in students' online discussions. For the third and fourth research questions, stepwise multiple regression analyses were first conducted with the artefact performance as the dependent variable, the three components of social presence and the four levels of cognitive presence as independent variables, respectively, and the total number of words as the covariate. Furthermore, the sub-components of the same category of social presence and sub-levels of the same category of cognitive presence were adopted as independent variables with the artefact performance as the dependent variable, and the total number of words as the covariate to perform separate stepwise multiple regression analyses for social and cognitive presences.

4 RESULTS

The findings of the distribution of students' social and cognitive presences in the online discourse and their relationship with the performance of student film reports are presented in this section.

4.1 Levels of social presence and cognitive presence

Regarding social presence (see Table 3), almost half of the students' discussion posts lied at the component of affectiveness (49%), followed by open communication (32%) and group cohesion (19%). However, the number of posts in each group of these three components varied greatly. When looking at each component in detail, regarding affectiveness, AF4 accounted for 66% of students' affective posts, meaning that students used a large number of unconventional expressions in their text conversations, compared to the use of conventional expressions (AF1, 4.3%). As for open communication, more than half of the posts were about students' asking questions to each other (OC3, 50.3%) and almost 40% of the discussion was about students' responses to each other by posts (OC1, 38.3%). With regard to group cohesion, most of the students' posts used inclusive pronouns (CH2, 46.8%). Moreover, many students referred to group members' names in the discussion (CH1, 35.3%).

As for cognitive presence (see Table 4), 95% of students' posts contributed to the level of exploration, followed by integration (2.5%) and triggering event (2.5%). Similarly, the number of posts posted by each group in these three levels varied greatly, especially for exploration. No discussions could be related to the level of resolution. More specifically, students' posts involved all four sub-levels of exploration. Most of the discussions were about suggestions to complete the project (EX3, 32.53%) and the exchange of information about the project (EX2, 30.28%). Within the limited number of posts of triggering event, almost all were about starting a new direction of discussion (TE2, 98.1%). In terms of the level of integration, most posts were about the provision of project solutions (IN4, 52.73%) and developed hypotheses (IN2, 37.27%).

4.2 Relationship between social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance

The results of stepwise regression analyses of both components and sub-components of social presence, and levels and sub-levels of cognitive presence as predictors are presented. The results indicated that the component of affectiveness was the only significant predictor of all components of social presence for the score of the film report (see Table 5), which explains 34% of the variance ( R = 0.58, F (1, 22) = 11.10, p < 0.01). The results also revealed that the level of exploration was the only significant predictor of all levels of cognitive presence for the film report performance (see Table 6), which explains 34% of the variance ( R = 0.58, F (1, 22) = 10.97, p  < 0.01).

The results for each sub-component of social presence and sub-level of cognitive presence are presented (see Table 7). We only present the results if at least one of the sub-components or sub-levels showed a significant result. More specifically, (a) in model affectiveness, AF2 was the only significant predictor of all sub-components of affectiveness for the artefact performance, which explains 32% of the variance ( R = 0.57, F (1, 22) = 10.45, p < 0.01); b) in model group cohesion, CH1 was the only significant predictor of all sub-components of group cohesion for the quality of the film report, which explains 32% of the variance ( R = 0.57, F (1, 22) = 10.67, p < 0.01); and (c) in model exploration, EX4 acted as the only significant predictor of all sub-levels of exploration for the score of the film report, which explains 41% of the variance ( R = 0.64, F (1, 22) =15.11, p < 0.01). In addition, in the rest models, namely model open communication, model triggering event, and model integration, only the covariate, namely the total number of words showed a significant result, which explains 28% of the variance ( R = 0.53, F (1, 22) =8.70, p  < 0.01).

5 DISCUSSIONS

This study aims to contribute to our understanding of students' social and cognitive presences in online PjBL and how they are related to student academic performance. To this end, based on the Community of Inquiry framework, 24 groups of student online discussions were coded socially and cognitively, and their relationship with student artefact (i.e. a film analysis report) was examined.

5.1 Social presence

Regarding the first research question, among the three components of social presence, affectiveness accounted for up to half of the student social presence in online discussions, followed by open communication and group cohesion. This result is in line with the findings of previous studies (e.g. Kilis & Yildirim, ; Li & Yu, ; Swan, ). It is not surprising that learners actively socialized with others during group discussions. When the course was implemented, students were first-year college students who just started their second semester. However, they were forced to separate from their peers and participated in online learning due to the breakout of COVID-19. Thus, the willingness of these students to establish, maintain and make up personal relationships might have been particularly strong. Furthermore, the result also confirmed Brown's () depiction of the process of establishing an online learning community. A quality community is built by three hierarchical steps, namely from the most common stage of students' emotional communication and friend-make with others (i.e. affectiveness) to the second phase of participation in long and thoughtful discussions (i.e. open communication), and to the most core stage of camaraderie (i.e. group cohesiveness).

It is worth noting that students' unconventional emotional expressions, such as emojis and stickers, appeared frequently, which is typical for students using WeChat to communicate. There are some benefits of communicating in this way in online group discussions. First, since online group learning is mostly mediated by technology that supports verbal communication, it is hard to get non-verbal communication cues (Robinson, ). This might lead to the misunderstanding of each other's intention as it is not easy for students to "discern the flavour of a reply" (Murphy & Coleman, , p. 6). Using emojis (e.g. an angry face) in an environment where students cannot see each other can accurately express their tones, emotions, or attitudes, and so on. Besides, conflicts have been identified as a typical element of collaborative learning (Robinson, ). When students have different opinions in communication, the emojis and stickers could act as mitigators for the potential emotional conflicts. In addition, when the team leader assigns tasks to team members or urges them to complete assignments, the atmosphere could become less formal and tough with the adding of some vivid expressions.

5.2 Cognitive presence

Regarding the second research question, the majority of student cognitive presence was at the exploration level. This finding is consistent with the claim of Garrison and Arbaugh () that it is not easy for learners to move beyond the exploration phase in the discourse and in line with the findings from the previous research (e.g. Jo et al., ; Kilis & Yildirim, ; Zydney et al., ). The reason of this result might be that to complete the final artefact in a short period, group members needed to reach consensus on many different tasks, which required a lot of information exchange and discussions. More specifically, students needed to watch all video lectures and the four films in order to get the basic knowledge of the course and the films. However, it was found that not everyone finished the watching. Therefore, it was necessary for team members to exchange relevant information and compensate the lack of information. Afterwards, students needed to report, discuss and reach agreement on a series of subtasks. These mainly included the discussion and selection of the film clips for analysis, the allocation of tasks and schedule, the ideas and suggestions on the writing, and the progress report of each member and so on.

5.3 Social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance

The findings also revealed that vocatives or addressing others by name were frequently used by students and it was positively related to the performance of their group work. Although previous studies have reported that the use of vocatives was often found in teachers' facilitation in online asynchronous discussions and MOOC education (e.g. Evans et al., ; Goshtasbpour et al., ), research has also reported that online students used a lot of vocatives via online communication tools like Twitter (e.g. Baisley-Nodine et al., ). Cleveland-Innes et al. () claimed that the significant role of vocatives is that it could initiate a cohesive environment of communication where students' capacity for collaboration might increase. The results of Williams et al. () showed that the cohesiveness of a group could positively influence students' cognitive learning outcomes.

As for the fourth research question, the results showed that the quality of group artefact was closely related to student presence of exploration, which is different from the findings of Galikyan and Admiraal () which showed that the cognitive presence of integration and resolution-and not exploration-were significant predictors of student academic performance. In their study, student teachers had well-structured discussions on the reflection of their teaching practice based on the guidance of Bloom's taxonomy. Therefore, a high requirement of cognition was expected from students. In the present study, however, as can be seen from the assessment criteria of the film analysis report, there were no high requirements set for students at the cognitive level. Instead, it primarily aimed to encourage students' acquisition and application of the content knowledge. Nevertheless, this finding still showed that the exploratory phase is a very important stage in online PjBL. Our results further found that offering opinions predicted the quality of the report, although the frequency of this indicator was the least among all exploration indicators. This might indicate that whether it is the exchange of information between students, making suggestions, or agreeing/disagreeing with each other, the ultimate goal is to motivate students to put forward opinions.

5.4 Implication for practice

A first implication for practice of the current study can be related to the design and organization of the project. Some groups spent too much time and effort on the exploration phase, particularly on the exchange of the basic information of the course lectures and films that they were supposed to acquire before the discussions started. Students in future projects should be required to finish learning the basic course materials before they set up and participate in group discussions. Second, although previous research has indicated the important role of teachers in promoting students' higher-level cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, ; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, ; Oh et al., ), it is a pity that little of it appeared in the conversations in this study due to the lack of teachers' facilitation in this project. In future projects, teachers might consider assisting students with the direction of the discussion. For example, they could help students to narrow the scope of the topics and knowledge to be used and guide them to find the associations between film clips and content knowledge. Furthermore, teachers could design and propose some questions that students could debate. For example, a good debating question regarding mental health is "is it necessary to screen for depression among the first-year college students?"

5.5 Limitations and directions for future research

A first limitation of the current study relates to the results of the level of social and cognitive presences. During the discussion, students frequently used humour, disclosed themselves, used many emojis and stickers, and mentioned each other's names. These observed levels of social presence might be triggered by the intimacy between group members and the small size of the group. Moreover, students' cognitive presence was mainly concentrated in the exploration phase, which might be related to the goal and type of the task, namely knowledge construction through ill-structured projects, and the lack of teachers' instructions and facilitation. In short, these findings might be specific for the way that social and cognitive presences were triggered in the current study. Other loose student groups and larger student groups might trigger different forms of social presence and other task types and ways of guidance by teachers might also trigger different cognitive presence. Future studies could include a variety of course setups, both in the domain of social and cognitive presences, to provide a more comprehensive overview of students' social and cognitive presences in online PjBL. Second, the content of the audio calls of some groups was not recorded. This might lead to an incomplete understanding of students' social and cognitive presences in online discussions. The loss of the data of certain online group behaviours was also reported in previous studies (e.g. Kaul et al., ; Tirado-Morueta et al., ). Future studies using similar communication tools like WeChat (e.g. WhatsApp) may record and analyse all categories of student data. Third, we focused on students' online discussions in all 24 groups as a whole, which ignores the differences within groups. Future studies could examine and compare the pattern of students' presence in each group via the social network analysis (e.g. Jo et al., ; Oh et al., ). In addition, since students need to conduct a series of activities during PjBL, future research could closely examine the level of student social and cognitive presences in each activity so as to better understand students' learning process in online PjBL. Furthermore, in order to deeply understand the relationship between students' presence and artefact performance, an explanatory sequential design (Creswell, ; Leavy, ) is suggested to be adopted in future studies. This means after the collection and analysis of quantitative data like in this study, qualitative methods such as interviews are adopted to further explain the quantitative results.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study has contributed to our understanding of college students' performance during online PjBL, based on the Community of Inquiry framework. It can be concluded from the results that the expressions of affectiveness and exploration are the most frequently used social and cognitive presences during students' online group discussions, respectively. In addition, students' group academic performance was positively related to the social presence of affective expressions, humour use, and vocatives and the cognitive presence of exploration and offering opinions. These findings can serve as guidelines on how to better design and organize online group projects and promotes students' academic performance in online PjBL.

The most significant theoretical contribution of the current study is providing a comprehensive understanding of students' learning processes in online PjBL based on the CoI framework. As discussed earlier (see Section 2.4), the previous literature have focused on students' social and cognitive presences during the discussion on given questions that are clear and well-structured with guidelines and examples (e.g. Evans et al., ; Galikyan & Admiraal, ; Jo et al., ; Joksimović et al., ; Kaul et al., ; Kilis & Yildirim, ; Kim, ; Liu & Yang, ; Oh et al., ; Richardson & Ice, ), which mainly investigates students' problem-solving via the acquisition and application of existing knowledge. This study, however, not only focuses on problem-solving but also, which is important for college students, on the construction of new information through the creation of project artefacts.

Accordingly, this study also improves the instrument for the analysis of students' social and cognitive presences (i.e. the coding scheme), making it suitable for students using instant messaging apps (e.g. WeChat) for PjBL. We found that the type of students' social presence when using WeChat to communicate is more than that when using online forums in Shea et al. (). Regarding the expression of emotions, students used many emojis and stickers to express their emotions. As for the open communication, students had many meaningless responses to others' messages, which is common in conversations on instant messaging apps. The improved coding scheme can capture these two sorts of data (see Table 1). Moreover, during PjBL students need to do a series of activities, such as defining problems, deciding methods, collecting and analysing data, and presenting results. These activities cannot be directly implemented and often contain various tasks, such as task selection and allocation, time allocation and management, and progress check. The updated coding scheme adopted in this study can capture these indispensable aspects of students' cognitive presence (see Table 2). In short, this improved analysis instrument will help analyse students' learning behaviour in online PjBL in future studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The article was funded by China Scholarship Council, Grant/Award Number: 201706310134; Huaqiao University, Grant/Award Number: 20JF-JXGZ20.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None declared.

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Abstract

Project-based learning (PjBL) engages students in knowledge acquisition, application, and construction through artefact development. Based on the Community of Inquiry framework, this study characterized college students' social and cognitive presences in online PjBL and examined how presence was related to their academic performance. Twenty-four groups of students participated in a 3-week project via WeChat discussion groups and created a final product. Transcripts of students' online discourse were collected and analysed by a coding scheme. The quality of students' artefacts was evaluated by a grading rubric. Descriptive results showed that the component of affectiveness and the level of exploration accounted for the majority of students' social and cognitive presences, respectively. Stepwise regression analyses revealed that certain components and sub-components of students' social presence, and levels and sub-levels of their cognitive presence were positively associated with their academic performance. Practical implications for teachers and suggestions for further research are provided.

Lay Description

What is already known about this topic

Social and cognitive presences predict academic performance in non-project-based online learning.

What this paper adds

Various components of social presence predict group artefact performance in online project-based learning.

Different levels of cognitive presence predict group artefact performance in online project-based learning.

Implications for practice and/or policy

Students should acquire basic content knowledge before participating in online project-based discussions.

Teachers might consider assisting students with the direction of online project-based discussions.

1 INTRODUCTION

Project-based learning (PjBL) indicates an inquiry-based teaching and learning method that engages students in knowledge acquisition, application and construction through the completion of authentic projects and the creation of real-world artefacts (Krajcik & Shin, ; Thomas, ). Chen and Yang () confirmed in their meta-analysis research that PjBL could be considered as an alternative pedagogy to traditional, teacher-centred instruction in primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Guo et al. () also revealed that PjBL, as a promising approach in higher education, is positively related to student cognitive, affective, and behavioural learning outcomes. During PjBL, learners usually work in small groups and collaboratively explore projects with peers (Chen & Yang, ; Dado & Bodemer, ). In order to facilitate learners to involve in this learning process, it might be helpful to adopt computer-supported technologies (Thomas & McGregor, ). Previous studies have mainly investigated student social and cognitive presences in online PjBL with computer-supported systems and tools under the guidance of different theories and models (e.g. Heo et al., ; Koh et al., ; Lin et al., ; Wu et al., ; Wu & Hou, ). To investigate students' social presence, Heo et al. () and Wu et al. () adopted the Interaction Analysis Model (IAM) proposed by Gunawardena et al. (). To explore students' cognitive presence, Lin et al. (), Wu et al. (), and Wu and Hou () used the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl (). Koh et al. () analysed both students' social and cognitive presences based on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., ). Still, few empirical data are available about students' social and cognitive presences during online PjBL and how these presences affect the quality of the final products students develop.

Some studies about students' online interaction in higher education have claimed that knowledge construction can occur through the social and cognitive exchanges of ideas in learners' online discourse (Agudo-Peregrina et al., ; Garrison et al., ). Studies that are based on the CoI framework have shown that both lower levels (e.g. Meyer, ; Shea et al., ; Vaughan & Garrison, ) and higher levels (e.g. Gašević et al., ; Oh et al., ; Richardson & Ice, ) of cognitive presence are most common in online discourse. These findings might be related to the structure of the problem that students face. Gašević et al. () claimed that learners can achieve higher levels of cognitive presence during online discussions if they work on well-structured rather than ill-structured tasks. However, Koh et al. () found that compared to non-project-based activities, during online PjBL, which is usually ill-structured, students' posts could be reaching more advanced cognitive presence. Moreover, although social presence is critical to the understanding of students' online discussions (Shea et al., ), few studies have investigated it (e.g. Richardson & Ice, ; Vaughan & Garrison, ) or examined it in general (e.g. Galikyan & Admiraal, ; Li & Yu, ; Meyer, ). Furthermore, Picciano () claimed that social presence is more significant when it comes to learning activities that are not just about acquiring knowledge but also constructing new information with peers.

In this study, we aim to characterize student social and cognitive presences in online discussions during PjBL and investigate how they are related to student performance. The findings might help learners to effectively engage in online PjBL and contribute to the enhancement of students' knowledge construction and application.

2 STUDENTS' SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE PRESENCES IN ONLINE DISCUSSIONS

2.1 Community of Inquiry framework

2.2 Levels of social and cognitive presences in online discussions

2.3 Relationship between academic performance and social and cognitive presences

In terms of cognitive presence, Galikyan and Admiraal () explored the relationship between student-teachers' cognitive presence in online discussion and their academic performance. In the online discussion forum, students were asked to reflect on the course materials and connect these to their teaching practice and provide solutions to practical teaching problems. Bloom's Taxonomy was used as a guideline for students to formulate and answer questions. Multiple regression analyses showed that-although the resolution level accounted for a tiny amount of cognitive presence-both integration and resolution were significantly related to student final grades. In another study, Jo et al. () coded students' online posts based on the four levels of cognitive presence and calculated the overall score by giving weight to each level and divided by the total number of posts. The results of the regression analysis revealed that the overall cognitive presence is significantly related to student academic performance. In short, the available studies suggest that student cognitive presence might have influence on academic performance.

2.4 Research questions

The current study is about students' social and cognitive presences and their relationship with students' academic performance in online PjBL. Despite that creating artefacts plays the most distinguishing role in PjBL (Blumenfeld et al., ; Helle et al., ) as artefacts are the representation of the performance of students' knowledge application and construction in PjBL, few studies of PjBL in higher education, according to Guo et al. (), have evaluated the performance of students' final products. For example, in the studies of Chua () and Chua et al. (), students participated in an engineering project and created small dryers for an agricultural client. The quality of the dryer was assessed by a 5-point scoring rubric based on a series of components, such as drying time and product quality. In Papastergiou (), student teachers participated in an educational project and built websites for primary schools as the artefacts. The performance of these websites was evaluated based on five groups of parameters, such as pedagogical, technical and usability variables. The quality of students' group artefacts was evaluated as student academic performance in this study. Since students created artefacts in small groups, we focus on the relationship at the group level. Thus, the specific research questions are as follows:

1. What components of social presence describe student groups' artefact creation in online discussions?

2. What levels of cognitive presence describe student groups' artefact creation in online discussions?

3. How is student social presence in online discussions related to the artefact performance?

4. How is student cognitive presence in online discussions related to the artefact performance?

3 METHOD

3.1 Research context and sample

This study was based on an 8-week online course of the Introductory Course of Mental Health for the freshmen in a Chinese university. There were two classes (in total 90 min) per week. In the first class of the first week, the course teacher introduced students to the course structure and some basic course requirements (e.g. course check-in). The primary researcher introduced students to the idea, the ethical rules of this study and the PjBL pedagogy and encouraged them to participate in this study. In addition, the researcher and the teacher introduced students to the film analysis project adopted in this course. This project aimed to help students better acquire and apply the content knowledge and eventually construct new information via the creation of a film analysis report. They also provided students with the grading criteria for the report and some suggested steps to complete the report, such as to first form small groups and create private WeChat groups, to select the film to be analysed and the theory to be used, and to discuss how to write each part based on the grading criteria.

Afterwards, for students, in the first to the third week, they were required to watch 26 recorded instruction videos in six chapters on the MOOC platform of the university. These videos contained basic content knowledge that students needed to learn and they were free to choose the watching sequence. They also needed to complete the quizzes in each chapter and asked questions to other students and the teacher, and had discussions on these questions. Meanwhile, students participated in the film analysis project and created an artefact (i.e. a film analysis report) in small groups. To this end, students were first asked to watch four films provided and choose one of them for further analysis. Since the aim of this course was not about professional film analysis, students did not analyse the entire film. They only needed to select certain clips of that film and analyse them based on the topics and theories that they learned from the online videos. During the whole process, students were asked to discuss everything about the project in their WeChat groups. The teacher mainly reminded students to log in the course every week and answered students' questions about the videos on the MOOC platform.

In weeks 4 to 7, the teacher gave online lectures and students attended these lectures. Students took a final paper-pencil exam in the last week. In total, 24 small groups of 3-4 students ( M age = 19) discussed and wrote the film report. These procedures observed the ethical requirements for educational research. All participants provided consent.

3.2 Data sources

Transcripts of students' messages during the online discussions for the group activity in the 24 WeChat groups were coded regarding social and cognitive presences. Five types of messages were identified, namely text messages, stickers and emojis, uploaded pictures and documents, audio messages, and audio calls. Audio messages were transferred into text messages for the coding and audio calls were excluded for the analysis because no recordings could be reached. Six groups had audio calls to discuss the task.

Since many messages posted were short and incomplete in meaning, in some cases, several messages were first combined to get a complete unit of meaning and then coded. In other cases, a single message was used as the unit of coding. In either case, the guiding principle is to code the units that contained "a single concept, expression or statement" as Strijbos et al. () suggested (p. 37). In total, 8469 units were coded.

Furthermore, the total number of words in each group were calculated ( M = 3162.63, SD = 2936.85), including both text words and non-text words. The proportion of the non-text words of each group are under 5.5% ( M = 3.4; SD = 1.3). The performance of the film analysis report was evaluated by two raters based on a grading rubric to measure the artefact performance.

3.3 Data analysis

3.3.1 Social and cognitive presences

An adapted coding scheme with examples (See Tables 1 and 2) based on the instrument in Shea et al. () was adopted to code all units regarding social presence and cognitive presence. Three components of social presence and their corresponding sub-components were distinguished: (1) affectiveness with five sub-components, (2) open communication with six sub-components, and (3) group cohesion with five sub-components. Four levels of cognitive presence and their corresponding sub-levels were distinguished: (1) Triggering event with two sub-levels, (2) Exploration with four sub-levels, (3) integration with four sub-levels and (4) Resolution with two sub-levels. If a coding unit contained more than one type of message, such as stickers with text on it and text followed by emojis, all types of messages were coded separately.

AF1

Expressing emotions

Conventional expressions of emotion.

Haha or Hahaha

I'm sorry (for)

Thank you (for your work)

Sigh (for)

AF2

Use of humour

Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements, and sarcasm, etc.

AF3

Self-disclosure

Present details of life outside of class.

Expressing vulnerability; includes expressions of likes, dislikes, and preferences.

My high school teacher said that my writing had no focus but only fragmented things.

(The writing) is so difficult, so difficult.

Why did not I find the clip I like?

I wrote badly.

I'm confused.

I might be a fake leader.

I want to praise this movie again. It's great.

The scene of the last film is really beautiful.

AF4

Unconventional expressions of emotion

Emoticons and stickers

Hahahahaha (more than three "ha")

OC1

Continuing a thread

Reply to others' messages with or without quoting (software dependent) rather than starting a new thread.

(Reply to others) your seven o'clock is different from ours.

OC3

Asking questions

Students ask questions of other students or the moderator.

How long do you think you can finish watching the film?

Do you mean that my introduction could be a bit shorter?

Is the title good?

What should I do? Revise or delete it?

OC5

Expressing agreement/disagreement

Expressing echoes that similar situations/problems encountered or not.

I have encountered the same situation.

I have not encountered the same situation.

I have similar problems.

I want to ask as well.

Me, too.

+1

CH5

Course reflection

Reflection on the course itself.

Extension or revision of the original coding scheme.

The example from the original coding scheme.

TE1

Recognize problem

Presenting background information that may culminate in a question or presents a problem/issues.

(According to the project requirements) it seems it's better to analyse clips.

TE2

Sense of puzzlement

Asking questions or messages that take discussion in a new direction.

Okay, let us start with the introduction.

I suddenly realized that we need to submit it next week.

So, what else to discuss? (after a deviation from the discussion)

End of this topic. Let us divide the work.

EX1

Exploration within the online community

Unsubstantiated agreement or disagreement/contradiction of previous ideas; includes "good point" or "I agree" with or without unsubstantiated elaboration.

EX2

Information exchange

I saw the content knowledge related to "hairstyle" in a certain course video.

The teacher said in the public group that we could attach pictures.

The clip that I chose is from min 24 to 70.

The documents of course and task requirement.

EX3

Suggestions for consideration

Let us decide how to write roughly and then divide the work.

Then let us watch this one and discuss later.

Let us think about the title and decide it together.

Let us first think about which clips we are going to analyse.

You guys can think about a few more of (the title).

Let me say it first.

The we decide XXX?

EX4

Offers opinions.

Offers unsupported opinions.

We will not find a theme if the keywords are too scattered.

I think the topic of depression is interesting.

The theme of winter might be related to setbacks.

I think these four (themes) all seem suitable, at the first glance.

(The part of) the choice of film theme and reasons are easy to write.

I think these two films involve a lot of content knowledge, although I do not know what the knowledge is.

(Part of) the uploaded manuscript that is not discussed.

IN1

Integration among groups members

Reference to previous message followed by substantiated agreement or disagreement (I agree/disagree because...)

Building on, adding to others' ideas

This is ok. Because if Joy did not abandon Sadness, there would not be the plot that the girl reflects and wakes up.

IN3

Connecting ideas. Synthesis

Integrating information from one or more sources-textbook, articles, personal experience, other posts or peer contributions.

I read some academic articles about depression and integrated into our report.

IN4

Creating solutions

Explicit characterization of message as a solution by participants.

Revised uploaded manuscripts etc. after group discussions.

RE1

Vicarious application to real world testing solutions.

Providing examples of how problems were solved.

RE2

Defending solutions.

Defending why a problem was solved in a specific manner.

Extension or revision of the original coding scheme.

The example from the original coding scheme.

The coding was performed by the first and third authors. Both coders first separately studied the original coding scheme and coded three groups of discourse. After the discussion about each other's codes, the two coders modified the original coding scheme and coded the rest groups of discussions together. A final check was conducted by the first coder.

3.3.2 Artefact performance

The performance of the film analysis report was evaluated by the first and the third authors based on a grading rubric. This rubric included criteria concerning the structures required and the quality. More specifically, the final report grades consisted of weighted scores from three parts, namely content (70%), structure (20%) and semantics (10%). The sub-categories of the content included 16 items, such as "no less than 2500 words," "the introduction is clear" and "clear introduction of subject knowledge." Both structure and semantics had one item. Moreover, if the two raters agreed that there was additional information for extra points, for example, in-text illustrations were adopted, one extra point would be given. A 4-point rubric from 1 (not corresponds) to 4 (corresponds) was adopted. This means that scores for each report could range from 16 to 64 based on the rubric, with some additional points if applicable.

The two evaluators first separately evaluated three groups of the report and checked each other's scores for all items. Since there are only four levels of the score for each item, if the difference of the score of an item given by the two evaluators is greater than 1 point, such as 4 points and 2 points, they discussed this difference and each other's grading criteria and re-scored this item together. Afterwards, they separately evaluated the rest groups of the report and repeated the above-mentioned procedures until all reports were evaluated, checked, discussed and re-scored if necessary.

3.3.3 Analyses

To answer the first two research questions, descriptive statistics were used for the components and sub-components of social presence, and the levels and the sub-levels of cognitive presence in students' online discussions. For the third and fourth research questions, stepwise multiple regression analyses were first conducted with the artefact performance as the dependent variable, the three components of social presence and the four levels of cognitive presence as independent variables, respectively, and the total number of words as the covariate. Furthermore, the sub-components of the same category of social presence and sub-levels of the same category of cognitive presence were adopted as independent variables with the artefact performance as the dependent variable, and the total number of words as the covariate to perform separate stepwise multiple regression analyses for social and cognitive presences.

4 RESULTS

The findings of the distribution of students' social and cognitive presences in the online discourse and their relationship with the performance of student film reports are presented in this section.

4.1 Levels of social presence and cognitive presence

Regarding social presence (see Table 3), almost half of the students' discussion posts lied at the component of affectiveness (49%), followed by open communication (32%) and group cohesion (19%). However, the number of posts in each group of these three components varied greatly. When looking at each component in detail, regarding affectiveness, AF4 accounted for 66% of students' affective posts, meaning that students used a large number of unconventional expressions in their text conversations, compared to the use of conventional expressions (AF1, 4.3%). As for open communication, more than half of the posts were about students' asking questions to each other (OC3, 50.3%) and almost 40% of the discussion was about students' responses to each other by posts (OC1, 38.3%). With regard to group cohesion, most of the students' posts used inclusive pronouns (CH2, 46.8%). Moreover, many students referred to group members' names in the discussion (CH1, 35.3%).

As for cognitive presence (see Table 4), 95% of students' posts contributed to the level of exploration, followed by integration (2.5%) and triggering event (2.5%). Similarly, the number of posts posted by each group in these three levels varied greatly, especially for exploration. No discussions could be related to the level of resolution. More specifically, students' posts involved all four sub-levels of exploration. Most of the discussions were about suggestions to complete the project (EX3, 32.53%) and the exchange of information about the project (EX2, 30.28%). Within the limited number of posts of triggering event, almost all were about starting a new direction of discussion (TE2, 98.1%). In terms of the level of integration, most posts were about the provision of project solutions (IN4, 52.73%) and developed hypotheses (IN2, 37.27%).

4.2 Relationship between social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance

The results of stepwise regression analyses of both components and sub-components of social presence, and levels and sub-levels of cognitive presence as predictors are presented. The results indicated that the component of affectiveness was the only significant predictor of all components of social presence for the score of the film report (see Table 5), which explains 34% of the variance ( R = 0.58, F (1, 22) = 11.10, p < 0.01). The results also revealed that the level of exploration was the only significant predictor of all levels of cognitive presence for the film report performance (see Table 6), which explains 34% of the variance ( R = 0.58, F (1, 22) = 10.97, p  < 0.01).

The results for each sub-component of social presence and sub-level of cognitive presence are presented (see Table 7). We only present the results if at least one of the sub-components or sub-levels showed a significant result. More specifically, (a) in model affectiveness, AF2 was the only significant predictor of all sub-components of affectiveness for the artefact performance, which explains 32% of the variance ( R = 0.57, F (1, 22) = 10.45, p < 0.01); b) in model group cohesion, CH1 was the only significant predictor of all sub-components of group cohesion for the quality of the film report, which explains 32% of the variance ( R = 0.57, F (1, 22) = 10.67, p < 0.01); and (c) in model exploration, EX4 acted as the only significant predictor of all sub-levels of exploration for the score of the film report, which explains 41% of the variance ( R = 0.64, F (1, 22) =15.11, p < 0.01). In addition, in the rest models, namely model open communication, model triggering event, and model integration, only the covariate, namely the total number of words showed a significant result, which explains 28% of the variance ( R = 0.53, F (1, 22) =8.70, p  < 0.01).

5 DISCUSSIONS

This study aims to contribute to our understanding of students' social and cognitive presences in online PjBL and how they are related to student academic performance. To this end, based on the Community of Inquiry framework, 24 groups of student online discussions were coded socially and cognitively, and their relationship with student artefact (i.e. a film analysis report) was examined.

5.1 Social presence

Regarding the first research question, among the three components of social presence, affectiveness accounted for up to half of the student social presence in online discussions, followed by open communication and group cohesion. This result is in line with the findings of previous studies (e.g. Kilis & Yildirim, ; Li & Yu, ; Swan, ). It is not surprising that learners actively socialized with others during group discussions. When the course was implemented, students were first-year college students who just started their second semester. However, they were forced to separate from their peers and participated in online learning due to the breakout of COVID-19. Thus, the willingness of these students to establish, maintain and make up personal relationships might have been particularly strong. Furthermore, the result also confirmed Brown's () depiction of the process of establishing an online learning community. A quality community is built by three hierarchical steps, namely from the most common stage of students' emotional communication and friend-make with others (i.e. affectiveness) to the second phase of participation in long and thoughtful discussions (i.e. open communication), and to the most core stage of camaraderie (i.e. group cohesiveness).

It is worth noting that students' unconventional emotional expressions, such as emojis and stickers, appeared frequently, which is typical for students using WeChat to communicate. There are some benefits of communicating in this way in online group discussions. First, since online group learning is mostly mediated by technology that supports verbal communication, it is hard to get non-verbal communication cues (Robinson, ). This might lead to the misunderstanding of each other's intention as it is not easy for students to "discern the flavour of a reply" (Murphy & Coleman, , p. 6). Using emojis (e.g. an angry face) in an environment where students cannot see each other can accurately express their tones, emotions, or attitudes, and so on. Besides, conflicts have been identified as a typical element of collaborative learning (Robinson, ). When students have different opinions in communication, the emojis and stickers could act as mitigators for the potential emotional conflicts. In addition, when the team leader assigns tasks to team members or urges them to complete assignments, the atmosphere could become less formal and tough with the adding of some vivid expressions.

5.2 Cognitive presence

Regarding the second research question, the majority of student cognitive presence was at the exploration level. This finding is consistent with the claim of Garrison and Arbaugh () that it is not easy for learners to move beyond the exploration phase in the discourse and in line with the findings from the previous research (e.g. Jo et al., ; Kilis & Yildirim, ; Zydney et al., ). The reason of this result might be that to complete the final artefact in a short period, group members needed to reach consensus on many different tasks, which required a lot of information exchange and discussions. More specifically, students needed to watch all video lectures and the four films in order to get the basic knowledge of the course and the films. However, it was found that not everyone finished the watching. Therefore, it was necessary for team members to exchange relevant information and compensate the lack of information. Afterwards, students needed to report, discuss and reach agreement on a series of subtasks. These mainly included the discussion and selection of the film clips for analysis, the allocation of tasks and schedule, the ideas and suggestions on the writing, and the progress report of each member and so on.

5.3 Social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance

The findings also revealed that vocatives or addressing others by name were frequently used by students and it was positively related to the performance of their group work. Although previous studies have reported that the use of vocatives was often found in teachers' facilitation in online asynchronous discussions and MOOC education (e.g. Evans et al., ; Goshtasbpour et al., ), research has also reported that online students used a lot of vocatives via online communication tools like Twitter (e.g. Baisley-Nodine et al., ). Cleveland-Innes et al. () claimed that the significant role of vocatives is that it could initiate a cohesive environment of communication where students' capacity for collaboration might increase. The results of Williams et al. () showed that the cohesiveness of a group could positively influence students' cognitive learning outcomes.

As for the fourth research question, the results showed that the quality of group artefact was closely related to student presence of exploration, which is different from the findings of Galikyan and Admiraal () which showed that the cognitive presence of integration and resolution-and not exploration-were significant predictors of student academic performance. In their study, student teachers had well-structured discussions on the reflection of their teaching practice based on the guidance of Bloom's taxonomy. Therefore, a high requirement of cognition was expected from students. In the present study, however, as can be seen from the assessment criteria of the film analysis report, there were no high requirements set for students at the cognitive level. Instead, it primarily aimed to encourage students' acquisition and application of the content knowledge. Nevertheless, this finding still showed that the exploratory phase is a very important stage in online PjBL. Our results further found that offering opinions predicted the quality of the report, although the frequency of this indicator was the least among all exploration indicators. This might indicate that whether it is the exchange of information between students, making suggestions, or agreeing/disagreeing with each other, the ultimate goal is to motivate students to put forward opinions.

5.4 Implication for practice

A first implication for practice of the current study can be related to the design and organization of the project. Some groups spent too much time and effort on the exploration phase, particularly on the exchange of the basic information of the course lectures and films that they were supposed to acquire before the discussions started. Students in future projects should be required to finish learning the basic course materials before they set up and participate in group discussions. Second, although previous research has indicated the important role of teachers in promoting students' higher-level cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, ; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, ; Oh et al., ), it is a pity that little of it appeared in the conversations in this study due to the lack of teachers' facilitation in this project. In future projects, teachers might consider assisting students with the direction of the discussion. For example, they could help students to narrow the scope of the topics and knowledge to be used and guide them to find the associations between film clips and content knowledge. Furthermore, teachers could design and propose some questions that students could debate. For example, a good debating question regarding mental health is "is it necessary to screen for depression among the first-year college students?"

5.5 Limitations and directions for future research

A first limitation of the current study relates to the results of the level of social and cognitive presences. During the discussion, students frequently used humour, disclosed themselves, used many emojis and stickers, and mentioned each other's names. These observed levels of social presence might be triggered by the intimacy between group members and the small size of the group. Moreover, students' cognitive presence was mainly concentrated in the exploration phase, which might be related to the goal and type of the task, namely knowledge construction through ill-structured projects, and the lack of teachers' instructions and facilitation. In short, these findings might be specific for the way that social and cognitive presences were triggered in the current study. Other loose student groups and larger student groups might trigger different forms of social presence and other task types and ways of guidance by teachers might also trigger different cognitive presence. Future studies could include a variety of course setups, both in the domain of social and cognitive presences, to provide a more comprehensive overview of students' social and cognitive presences in online PjBL. Second, the content of the audio calls of some groups was not recorded. This might lead to an incomplete understanding of students' social and cognitive presences in online discussions. The loss of the data of certain online group behaviours was also reported in previous studies (e.g. Kaul et al., ; Tirado-Morueta et al., ). Future studies using similar communication tools like WeChat (e.g. WhatsApp) may record and analyse all categories of student data. Third, we focused on students' online discussions in all 24 groups as a whole, which ignores the differences within groups. Future studies could examine and compare the pattern of students' presence in each group via the social network analysis (e.g. Jo et al., ; Oh et al., ). In addition, since students need to conduct a series of activities during PjBL, future research could closely examine the level of student social and cognitive presences in each activity so as to better understand students' learning process in online PjBL. Furthermore, in order to deeply understand the relationship between students' presence and artefact performance, an explanatory sequential design (Creswell, ; Leavy, ) is suggested to be adopted in future studies. This means after the collection and analysis of quantitative data like in this study, qualitative methods such as interviews are adopted to further explain the quantitative results.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study has contributed to our understanding of college students' performance during online PjBL, based on the Community of Inquiry framework. It can be concluded from the results that the expressions of affectiveness and exploration are the most frequently used social and cognitive presences during students' online group discussions, respectively. In addition, students' group academic performance was positively related to the social presence of affective expressions, humour use, and vocatives and the cognitive presence of exploration and offering opinions. These findings can serve as guidelines on how to better design and organize online group projects and promotes students' academic performance in online PjBL.

The most significant theoretical contribution of the current study is providing a comprehensive understanding of students' learning processes in online PjBL based on the CoI framework. As discussed earlier (see Section 2.4), the previous literature have focused on students' social and cognitive presences during the discussion on given questions that are clear and well-structured with guidelines and examples (e.g. Evans et al., ; Galikyan & Admiraal, ; Jo et al., ; Joksimović et al., ; Kaul et al., ; Kilis & Yildirim, ; Kim, ; Liu & Yang, ; Oh et al., ; Richardson & Ice, ), which mainly investigates students' problem-solving via the acquisition and application of existing knowledge. This study, however, not only focuses on problem-solving but also, which is important for college students, on the construction of new information through the creation of project artefacts.

Accordingly, this study also improves the instrument for the analysis of students' social and cognitive presences (i.e. the coding scheme), making it suitable for students using instant messaging apps (e.g. WeChat) for PjBL. We found that the type of students' social presence when using WeChat to communicate is more than that when using online forums in Shea et al. (). Regarding the expression of emotions, students used many emojis and stickers to express their emotions. As for the open communication, students had many meaningless responses to others' messages, which is common in conversations on instant messaging apps. The improved coding scheme can capture these two sorts of data (see Table 1). Moreover, during PjBL students need to do a series of activities, such as defining problems, deciding methods, collecting and analysing data, and presenting results. These activities cannot be directly implemented and often contain various tasks, such as task selection and allocation, time allocation and management, and progress check. The updated coding scheme adopted in this study can capture these indispensable aspects of students' cognitive presence (see Table 2). In short, this improved analysis instrument will help analyse students' learning behaviour in online PjBL in future studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The article was funded by China Scholarship Council, Grant/Award Number: 201706310134; Huaqiao University, Grant/Award Number: 20JF-JXGZ20.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None declared.

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Community of Inquiry perspective on students' social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance in online project‐based learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pengyue Guo , Nadira Saab , Mental Health Education Center, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, China Search for more papers by this author Wilfried Admiraal , ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands Search for more papers by this author ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands Search for more papers by this author Corresponding Author ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands Correspondence Pengyue Guo, ICLON, Leiden University, Kolffpad 1, 2333 BN Leiden, The Netherlands.

# data[].attributes.body
2020 and 2021 have been incredibly difficult years for students around the world. With a shift to online learning and not having the face to face direction of educators, it is important for us to look at CoI and the impact of COVID-19 on student motivation and performance. This paper gives some insight into this topic in higher education.

# data[].attributes.headline
CoI and Learner Emotions - the 4th Element of E-learning

# data[].attributes.subject
CoI and Learner Emotions - the 4th Element of E-learning

# data[].attributes.body
The above article gives insight into how emotion needs to be considered in the CoI model.

# data[].attributes.headline
What you need to think about - What do you like about working with others? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What you need to think about - What do you like about working with others? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
But what about Emotional Presence? With our evolving world we need to think about how EQ fits into our educational experience.

# data[].attributes.body
With a strong movement to online learning, one negative side effect can be people's tendency to work alone. Community of Inquiry (CoI) helps us to understand why working with others in the digital space is so important.

Watch this short video which explains the importance of CoI for online learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Community of Inquiry Framework for Online Learners

# data[].attributes.headline
“Everyone says students learn better in groups, that it builds academic confidence and competencies in all participants. My experience as an educator is that it is generally difficult to get students to engage in anything but ‘social loafing’ during group work. Can my new experience as an online student change my perspective? How can I use my new knowledge of connected learning? How can I get my students to learn in the online classroom because they want to, not because they have to?”       

# data[].attributes.subject
“Everyone says students learn better in groups, that it builds academic confidence and competencies in all participants. My experience as an educator is that it is generally difficult to get students to engage in anything but ‘social loafing’ during group work. Can my new experience as an online student change my perspective? How can I use my new knowledge of connected learning? How can I get my students to learn in the online classroom because they want to, not because they have to?”       

# data[].attributes.body
If we apply the Circle of Courage to the online learning space, in order to feel safe to take learning risks, the Circle of Courage theorises that students need to experience BELONGING within their learning community, to be able to experience MASTERY, have INDEPENDENCE in their learning, and to experience GENEROSITY in contributing to people and things greater than themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Intensive English Institute University of Illinois