Staying Connected Online: Investigating Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence among Undergraduates

Online learning has emerged as a significant aspect of higher education, treating students’ online presence as a key factor influencing engagement and learning outcomes. Navigated by the Community of Inquiry framework, the present research explores undergraduate learners’ perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in online classes, together with the connections between these dimensions. Data were collected from 79 undergraduate students using a quantitative survey research design. The survey was a 31-item questionnaire adapted from Garrison and Arbaugh (2007). The instrument included three sections evaluating three dimensions: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Reliability analysis presented excellent internal consistency for all dimensions, with an overall Cronbach’s alpha of .969. Descriptive analyses also disclosed that students perceived teaching presence most positively, especially with regards to the lecturer’s communication and guidance. Meanwhile, cognitive presence was also highly rated, indicating students’ active engagement in exploration, integration, and application of knowledge. Conversely, social presence received relatively lower ratings, specifically related to group cohesion and comfort in stating disagreement. Apart from that, correlation analyses displayed significant positive relationships among teaching, social, and cognitive presence. The strongest association was found between social and cognitive presence, implying that meaningful social interaction contributes significantly to knowledge construction in online learning environments. All in all, the findings emphasise the significance of nurturing balanced instructional, social, and cognitive support to improve students’ online learning experiences.

Online learning

1. Ahmad, N., Alias, F.A., Hamat, M., & Mohamed, S.A. (2024) Reliability Analysis: Application of Cronbach’s Alpha in Research Instruments. SIG: e-Learning@CS, 114-119. https://appspenang.uitm.edu.my/sigcs/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, R. (2019). The Development of a Community of Inquiry Over Time in an Online Course: Understanding the Progression and Integration of Social, Cognitive and Teaching Presence. Online Learning, 12(3-4), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3-4.1680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aldalalah, O. M. A. A. (2025). Connectivism and E-Collaborative learning: A Framework for Enhancing Digital Self-Efficacy in Higher Education through Big Data Organization. Educational Process: International Journal, 19, e2025584. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.19.584 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Aliyu, J., Osman, S., Kumar, J. A., Talib, C. A., & Jambari, H. (2022). Students’ Engagement through Technology and Cooperative Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Learning and Development, 12(3), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v12i3.20051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Al-Saggaf, M. A., & Rosli, A. S. (2021). The level of Community of Inquiry (CoI) presences in online classes among MSU BTESL students. TESOL and Technology Studies, 2(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.48185/tts.v2i1.175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Alshammari, S.H. & Alrehaili, T.A. (2025). The effect of teaching, social, and cognitive presence on student engagement in online courses: a structural equation modelling approach. Acta Psychologica, 258, 105183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping Research in Student Engagement and Educational Technology in Higher Education: A Systematic Evidence Map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bozkurt, A., Karakaya, K., Turk, M., Karakaya, Ö., & Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2022). The Impact of COVID-19 on Education: A Meta-Narrative Review. TechTrends, 66(5), 883-896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chatterjee, S., & Parra, J. (2022). Undergraduate students’ engagement in formal and informal learning: Applying the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211062552 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dong, L., Hsieh, C.-J., Watson, S. L., Yu, J. H., & Lowell, V. L. (2025). Revisiting the interrelationships between social and cognitive presences in asynchronous online courses: Insights from epistemic network analysis. Online Learning, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.4672 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Downes, S. (2005). An introduction to connective knowledge. Stephen’s Web. http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Edumadze, J. K. E., & Govender, D. W. (2024). The impact of Community of Inquiry presences on student engagement in blended MOOCs: A case study of university students in a developing country. Smart Learning Environments, 11(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00306-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Garrison, D.R. & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172. Retrieved from http://reinventnet.org/moodle/pluginfile.php/1196/mod_resource/content/3/COIreview.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Gökoğlu, S., Yılmaz, F. G. K., & Yılmaz, R. (2024). Student engagement, Community of Inquiry, and Trans‑ actional Distance in online learning environments: A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(4), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i4.7660 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. He, L. (2024) The Application of SPSS Correlation Analysis in the Study of Precision Teaching of English in Universities. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science, 9(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-1371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hendricks, G.P. (2019). Connectivism as a learning theory and its relation to open distance education. Progression, 41(1), 4773. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-5895/4773 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2021). Predictive effects of undergraduate students’ perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presence on affective learning outcomes according to disciplines. Computers & Education, 161, 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lau, E. Y. H., Li, J.-B., & Lee, K. (2021). Online learning and parent satisfaction during COVID-19: Child competence in independent learning as a moderator of the relationship between online learning quantity and parent satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 679197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679197 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Li, J., & Xue, E. (2023). Dynamic Interaction between Student Learning Behaviour and Learning Environment: Meta-Analysis of Student Engagement and Its Influencing Factors. Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Miao, J., & Ma, L. (2022). Students' online interaction, self-regulation, and learning engagement in higher education: The importance of social presence to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 815220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815220 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mutezo, A. T., & Maré, S. (2023). Teaching and cognitive presences: The mediating effect of social presence in a developing world context. Cogent Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2171176 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Nasir, M. K. M., & Ngah, A. H. (2022). The sustainability of online learning experiences during the pandemic: Investigating students’ satisfaction using the Community of Inquiry framework. Sustainability, 14(15), 9633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159633 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Odhiambo, A. (2023). The impact of social presence on online student engagement. Journal of Online and Distance Learning, 3(1), 14-27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ofosu-Ampong, K., Agyekum, M. W., & Garcia, M. B. (2024). Long-Term Pandemic Management and the Need to Invest in Digital Transformation: A Resilience Theory Perspective. In Transformative Approaches to Patient Literacy and Healthcare Innovation (pp. 242-260). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3661-8.ch012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Rahmat,N.H (2025) A Comparison of Online Engagement for Undergraduates. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Sciences, IX(VI), 3260-3270. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Shi, Y., Chen, M., Wei, Y., Shen, J., Wu, M., & Zhu, K. (2025). Understanding effects of engaging online learning environments on students’ cognitive engagement and well-being: the role of academic self-concept and flow. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(16), 1614109. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1614109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation. Accessed May 18, 2026. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tan, K. H., Chan, P. P., & Mohd Said, N.-E. (2021). Higher education students’ online instruction perceptions and satisfaction during remote learning. Sustainability, 13(19), 10840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910840 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Teh, K. S. M., et al. (2024). Undergraduate students’ academic achievement and learning interest in HyFlex learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.0105003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Van Wart, M., Ni, A., Medina, P., Canelon, J., Kordrostami, M., Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2020). Integrating students’ perspectives about online learning: A hierarchy of factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00229-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Vetter, T.R. (2017). Descriptive Statistics: Reporting the Answers to the 5 Basic Questions of Who, What, Why, When, Where, and a Sixth, so What? Anesth Analg, 12595, 1797-1802. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zhang, Y., Huang, J., Hussain, S., & Dong, Y. (2023). Investigating the Impact of the Community of Inquiry Presence on Online Learning Satisfaction: A Chinese College Student Perspective. Psychology research and behavior management, 16, 1883–1896. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S409229 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Casey A. E., Jennifer M. D., Meghan M. J., Thomas E. K, and Marna, C.. (202) Impact of Demographic Survey Questions on Response Rate and Measurement: A Randomized Experiment. Survey Practice 14 (1), https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2021-0010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Employee Training Efficacy in Banking Sector
• Multidimensional Predictors of University Students’ Examination Performance: A Quantitative Analysis of Psychological, Environmental, And Skill-Based Factors
• Digital Learning Innovation: Evaluating the Effectiveness of MOOC and Politicbox in Enhancing Students Understanding
• An Investigation of Group Work through Mcclelland’s Theory
• The Impact of a Practical Flipped Process-Genre Writing Model on Moroccan EFL High School Students’ Writing Performance