THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY

Engaging Communities in Collaboration through Online Communities of Inquiry

by

Lorraine Weaver

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Education
KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
NOVEMBER, 2020
Supervisor: Dr. Carol Rees
Co-supervisor: Dr. Michelle Harrison
Committee member: Dr. Laura Doan
External examiner: Dr. Norm Vaughn

©Lorraine Weaver, 2020

ABSTRACT
This research examined the community of inquiry as a framework for
collaborative, online community engagement with the goal of supporting collaborative
participation of community members inhibited from attending face-to-face engagement
opportunities. The community of inquiry framework was used to design a two-week,
online, asynchronous community engagement experience for ten participants divided into
two groups. Case study qualitative methods were used to explore the records of
discussion to determine how the community of inquiry supported online community
engagement as well as identify impediments to its development. The framework
supported community engagement; however, participants did not complete the inquiry
cycle. Potential inhibitors to the framework’s development included participant
motivation, lack of engagement between participants, response timing in asynchronous
discussion, and the overall time available to complete the study. In response to these
results, promising practices and a modified community of inquiry model were proposed
for application in a community engagement setting.
Keywords: community of inquiry; community engagement; collaboration;
makerspace; cognitive presence; social presence; facilitation; inquiry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my two thesis advisors, Dr.
Carol Rees and Dr. Michelle Harrison for sharing with me invaluable guidance and
unwavering support. Your deep knowledge of the subject matter and research methods
have supported me in planning and conveying my research as clearly as possible. I am
also appreciative for how you guided and supported my deep reflection of the data in my
first foray into qualitative research. Finally, I would like to thank you for the positivity
and optimism you brought to the project. I have learned and grown so much from your
encouragement and expertise.
Thank you to all those who read this research and provide me with feedback
including Dr. Laura Doan and Dr. Norm Vaughn, my committee members. Your time
and consideration will further enhance my learning.
Thank you to the Makerspace Administrators, Franklin Sayre and Erin May,
who supported this research (even through the pandemic) with subject matter expertise
and assistance recruiting.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who volunteered their time to participate
in this study. You have contributed to my learning as well as the body of research relating
to the community of inquiry and online community engagement.

DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my family who has offered compassionate support and
encouragement throughout my journey. To my husband, John, and my children, Samuel
and William, I thank you for understanding when I could not share my time as freely as I
normally would. To my parents, I thank you for instilling in me a life-long love of
learning and supporting me through all my academic journeys.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ............................................................................... 4
Community of Inquiry Framework ................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Community of Inquiry Framework ......................................................... 4
Origins of the Community of Inquiry Framework .......................................................... 4
Components of the Community of Inquiry Framework.................................................. 5
Validation of the Community of Inquiry Framework ..................................................... 7
Prior Research Using Community of Inquiry Framework .............................................. 8
Designing a Community of Inquiry using the Community of Inquiry Framework ........ 9
Theoretical Foundations ................................................................................................ 13
Makerspace ..................................................................................................................... 13
How Makerspaces Support Goals ................................................................................. 14
User Training at Makerspaces ....................................................................................... 15
Inclusion and Accommodation in Makerspaces ........................................................... 17
Literature Summary ........................................................................................................ 19
Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................ 21
Design and Matters Related to Epistemology ................................................................. 21
Justification of Method Selection ................................................................................. 21
Description of Study ..................................................................................................... 23
Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................ 24
Participants .................................................................................................................... 25
Facilitation Team .......................................................................................................... 25
Makerspace Community of Inquiry Design .................................................................. 25
Data Collection.............................................................................................................. 27
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 27
Deductive Coding Structure .......................................................................................... 27
Inductive Coding Structure ........................................................................................... 28
Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion.............................................................................. 31
Overview of Findings...................................................................................................... 31
How the Community of Inquiry Framework Facilitates Community Engagement ........ 35
The Role of Cognitive Processes .................................................................................. 36
The Role of Social Presence ......................................................................................... 38
The Role of Facilitator Presence ................................................................................... 40
Impediments to the Establishment of the Community of Inquiry Model in a Community
Engagement Setting ........................................................................................................ 43
Participant Motivation................................................................................................... 43
Willingness to Engage with Other Participants ............................................................ 44
Synchronous versus Asynchronous Discussion ............................................................ 46
Study Duration .............................................................................................................. 47
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................. 48
Reviewing Findings in Relation to the Model ................................................................ 48
Facilitator Presence: Modelling Social Presence .......................................................... 49
v

Facilitator Presence: Facilitating Discourse and Directions & Instructions ................. 52
Facilitator Presence: Design and Organization ............................................................. 56
Proposed Community of Inquiry Framework for Community Engagement ................ 57
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 58
Design and Organization ............................................................................................... 58
Facilitator’s Approach: Facilitating Discourse, Directions & Instructions, and
Modelling Social Presence ............................................................................................ 61
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................. 63
Future Work .................................................................................................................... 64
Chapter 6: Conclusion .................................................................................................... 65

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 2 .............................................................................................................................. 35
Table 3 .............................................................................................................................. 36
Table 4 .............................................................................................................................. 38
Table 5 .............................................................................................................................. 39
Table 6 .............................................................................................................................. 41
Table 7 .............................................................................................................................. 42
Table 8 .............................................................................................................................. 46
Table 9 .............................................................................................................................. 51
Table 10 ............................................................................................................................ 53
Table 11 ............................................................................................................................ 54

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 3 ............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4 ............................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 6 ............................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 7 ............................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 8 ............................................................................................................................. 63

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Community engagement and participation play a fundamental role in determining
equitable and democratic solutions to complex issues (Afzalan et al., 2017; Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health, 2015; Ramaley, 2016). Unfortunately, change efforts do
not always include a representative mix of community stakeholders (Barnes & Schmitz,
2016). Equal access to community engagement is recognized as an ethical principle by
the International Association for Public Participation (2017) and is included explicitly in
community engagement frameworks (Ahmed & Palermo, 2010; Centre for Addiction and
Mental Health, 2015; Community Places, 2014; Department of Infrastructure, 2017;
Schmitz, 2017; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018; Vaughn, 2018). Despite
the recognition of the importance of inclusion, barriers to meaningful community
engagement such as “physical health and wellbeing, childcare and family care
commitments, shyness or lack of social skills, lack of time, language barriers,…socioeconomic circumstances” (Harden et al., 2015, pp. 86–88), access to transport and event
timings (Harden et al., 2015) are still being reported.
Many barriers that prevent people from participating in face-to-face community
engagement (Harden et al., 2015) would not inhibit participation if a mix of online and
face-to-face public engagement methods were used (Department of Infrastructure, 2017).
However, participatory guidance often does not include meaningful online community
engagement where participants acquire an “enhance[d] understanding of public problems,
and explore and generate potential solutions” (Bryson et al., 2013, p. 25). Within the
community engagement context, collaboration is defined as a partnership where the
public is involved in working with each other and the community organization to explore
an issue including developing options and indicating the preferred option (Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health, 2015; Community Places, 2014; International Association
for Public Participation, 2018; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). “As
participants in good decision-making processes, all stakeholders must understand all
sides of an issue, weigh the pros and cons, and make more thoughtful decisions” (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2018, p. 4). However, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2018) actively discourages the use of online tools for collaboration
with the statement “consensus building requires that people meet face-to-face” (p. 34).
1

The Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia (2013), Department of
Infrastructure (2017), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018), and Community
Places (2014) provide some engagement activities and online tools such as social media
groups, electronic democracy, online deliberative forums, The World Café, and
PlaceSpeak; however, they do not suggest a framework to be used to ensure quality
discourse within these. The tools recommended such as PlaceSpeak, Engagement Hub,
Engagement HQ, Citizen Space, or Mind Mixer can be costly and without a model of
discourse, they may not be necessary nor sufficient for community collaboration. Online
discourse has been criticized for its lack of quality and collaborative consideration
(Kersting, 2013); unfortunately, community engagement toolkits do not currently address
this problem.
This problem might be solved using constructivist learning models which align well
with collaborative community engagement as it requires learning about the issue from
different perspectives and then collaboratively building a complete picture of the issue.
Collaborative community engagement can be viewed as founded on the perspective that
knowledge is socially constructed, the foundation of Dewey’s educational philosophy as
well as specific constructivist learning theory (Alomyan & Green, 2019; Garrison &
Akyol, 2013; Gutek, 2015; Ruey, 2010; Schunk, 2012). There are numerous instructional
strategies, principles, and models for online constructivist learning that might be applied
in a community engagement setting to facilitate collaboration (Ruey, 2010). From a
research review, Sun and Chen (2016) have outlined promising practices for online
learning which include well designed and organized content, collaborative discussions
between students and the teacher or facilitator, well prepared teachers or facilitators, and
a sense of community. Alomyan and Green (2019) recommend course design elements of
online constructivist courses including activities which guide the learner in sourcing
content, facilitating interaction leading to knowledge construction and providing
activities that result in a social presence. Sun and Chen (2016) also stress the
interdependence of course elements, “cognitive presence and epistemic engagement can
occur only when teaching and social presence are well developed, and the development
of social presence is dependent on how well the teaching presence has been established”
(p. 165). The community of inquiry framework was selected from the numerous options
2

as it has been well validated and contains elements recommended through independent
studies.
Communities of inquiry have frequently been employed within education to allow a
group to learn and discuss issues meaningfully (Kineshanko, 2016). It is a framework
grounded in constructivist learning theory that consists of three overlapping elements:
social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000, 2010).
These overlapping presences set the climate for positive learning, create a supporting
discourse, and enable collaborative content selection (Garrison et al., 2000, 2010). It has
been used successfully by many institutions in an educational context to design and
analyze online courses (Chanprasitchai & Khlaisang, 2016; Cohen & Holstein, 2018;
Garrison et al., 2010; Kineshanko, 2016; Mills et al., 2016; Nolan-Grant, 2019). Despite
its success in an educational context (Kineshanko, 2016), the community of inquiry
framework has not been promoted as a framework for collaborating within communities.
This research studied how the community of inquiry framework could be used to
develop meaningful online community engagement with the goal of providing
organizations completing public engagement a way to engage the public more
meaningfully in an online collaborative process. This will in turn enable inclusion of
community members previously inhibited from meaningful community engagement.
The research questions studied were:
Question 1: How did the community of inquiry framework facilitate collaborative
community engagement in an online, asynchronous space?
Question 2: What were the impediments (if any) to the establishment of the
community of inquiry model in a community engagement setting?

3

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
This section will explore the foundation of research related to the community of
inquiry framework and makerspaces that the study has been built on. Specifically, it will
outline the purpose, origins, components, and validation of the community of inquiry
framework. Prior research using the framework will be explored as well as its practical
implementation. The section includes a description of the community of inquiry
theoretical foundation to demonstrate how it aligns with collaborative community
engagement. Finally, literature relating to how makerspaces support user goals, training,
and inclusion is investigated.
Community of Inquiry Framework
Purpose of the Community of Inquiry Framework
The community of inquiry framework was developed by Garrison et al. (2000) as a
model to guide online course design and course evaluation. They “constructed a
comprehensive conceptual framework designed to capture the educational dynamic and
guide the study of online learning effectiveness in higher education” (Garrison & Akyol,
2013, p. 13). This constructivist framework was designed to facilitate collaboration to
complete deep social learning and discuss issues in an online setting (Garrison et al.,
2000; Garrison, 2009, 2016; Garrison & Akyol, 2013; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007;
Vaughan et al., 2013).
Origins of the Community of Inquiry Framework
Grounded in social constructivist learning theory, Garrison et al. (2000) proposed the
community of inquiry conceptual framework based on literature by Lipman, Resnick,
Schrage, and Dewey describing inquiry learning, collaboration, and descriptions of
communities of inquiry. Since this initial paper, many researchers have continued to build
on, validate, detail, research, and explore the community of inquiry framework (Garrison
et al., 2010). In fact, the term “community of inquiry” produces over 24 000 results in
Google Scholar and Garrison et al.’s (2000) initial article has been cited in Google
Scholar over 5700 times. Although developed twenty years ago, the framework still
remains a significant method for design and assessment of online learning (Kineshanko,
2016).
4

Components of the Community of Inquiry Framework
As discussed in the introduction and shown in Figure 1, the community of inquiry
framework consists of three overlapping elements: social presence, cognitive presence,
and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000, 2010). Importantly, these overlapping
presences set the climate for positive learning, create a supporting discourse, and enable
collaborative content selection (Garrison et al., 2000, 2010). Within each element are
categories that function as components of the elements (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Examples of each category in practice are shown as indicators (Garrison & Arbaugh,
2007). Table 1 further elaborates on each element of the community of inquiry
framework.
Figure 1
The Community of Inquiry Framework

Note. Reprinted from “The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A
retrospective”, by D. R. Garrison, T. Anderson, & W. Archer, 2010, Internet and Higher
Education, 13, p. 6. Copyright 2010 by Internet and Higher Education. Reprinted with
permission.

5

Table 1
Elements, Categories, and Indicators in the Community of Inquiry Framework
Elements

Categories

Indicators (examples only)

Social
Presence

Open Communication
(Interactive
Statements)
Group Cohesion
(Cohesive Statements)
Affective Expression
(Affective Statements)
Triggering Event
Exploration
Integration

Risk-free expression; course discussions;
expressing agreement
Encourage collaboration; use of inclusive
pronouns; refers to participants by name
Emoticons; expressing emotions; use of
humor; self-disclosure

Cognitive
Presence

Sense of puzzlement
Information exchange
Connecting ideas; developing solutions;
explaining problems
Resolution
Apply new ideas; describe applications of
learning in real settings
Teaching Design & Organization
Setting curriculum & methods
Presence
Facilitating Discourse
Sharing personal meaning; shaping
constructive exchange
Direct Instruction
Focusing discussion; feedback
Note. Data for all elements and categories from Garrison and Arbaugh (2007), Heckman
and Annabi (2005), and Rourke et al. (1999) and for examples from Garrison and
Arbaugh (2007), Heckman and Annabi (2005), Heilporn and Lakhal (2020), Rourke et al.
(1999), and Vaughan et al. (2013).
Social Presence. The social presence includes three categories, open communication,
group cohesion, and affective expression (Garrison et al., 2000, 2010; Garrison &
Arbaugh, 2007). These categories have also been referred to as interactive, cohesive, and
affective statements (Heckman & Annabi, 2005; Rourke et al., 1999). Social presence is
an integral part of the model as “the social relations of communication are entangled with
the learning process (Xin & Feenberg, 2006, p. 3). In fact, Garrison (2016) linked these to
“the ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate
purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships
progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities” (p. 7). Social presence
encompasses strategies, language, and other expressive elements that bring course
participants and instructors closer together emotionally, connecting them in an authentic
way (Dunlap, Verma, et al., 2016). Although it might seem like specific activities should
focus on developing this presence such as the ice breakers used in face-to-face
6

interaction, Garrison and Akyol (2013) specify that social presence “should be developed
naturally and progressively through the purposeful and collaborative inquiry process” (p.
8).
Cognitive Presence. The cognitive presence element is based on reflective inquiry
and critical thinking literature (Garrison & Akyol, 2013). The element uses a four-phased
practical inquiry model which includes a triggering event to initiate different
perspectives, exploration of related resources, integration of information, and resolution
of the problem (Garrison et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2018; Sun & Chen, 2016). The
process is focussed on collaborative knowledge building which includes reinforcing
existing knowledge (Garrison & Akyol, 2013). Comparison of the change in cognitive
presence from the triggering event to the resolution indicates students have gained a
deeper conceptual understanding of the content (Dunlap, Verma, et al., 2016; Huang et
al., 2018).
Teaching Presence. Teaching presence integrates the social and cognitive elements in
the community of inquiry (Garrison, 2009). The three dimensions of teaching presence,
design, facilitation, and direction, “provide the structure (design) and leadership
(facilitation and direction) required for effective interaction and discourse” (Garrison &
Akyol, 2013, p. 16). They have been identified as crucial to satisfaction, participation,
quality responses, perceived learning, and sense of community (Garrison et al., 2010;
Garrison & Akyol, 2013). Teaching presence involves “identifying relevant social
knowledge, designing experiences that facilitate reflection and discourse, and diagnosing
and assessing learning outcomes” (Garrison & Akyol, 2013, p. 14). Although these are
responsibilities of the facilitator, the community of inquiry framework emphasizes that
students can be empowered to perform activities relating to teaching presence and this
occurs more frequently online than in face-to-face settings (Cleveland-Innes, 2020;
Heckman & Annabi, 2005).
Validation of the Community of Inquiry Framework
The framework has been validated using a standardized 34-item survey (Arbaugh et
al., 2008). Arbaugh et al. (2008) validated the elements of the survey using 287 education
and business graduate-level students across four institutions in the United States and
Canada. This was later confirmed by several other studies (Heilporn & Lakhal, 2020).
7

The categories of the framework used in the survey were also found valid and reliable by
Heilporn and Lakhal (2020) using factor analysis of 763 French-speaking university
students from two institutions in Canada. Although some studies have suggested
modifications to the framework, for example the addition of a fourth element such as an
emotional presence (Cleveland-Innes, 2020), Kozan and Caskurlu (2018) completed a
descriptive review of these studies and concluded that there is not yet sufficient research
to support amendments.
Prior Research Using Community of Inquiry Framework
Literature surrounding the use of community of inquiry framework in educational
settings is substantial (Kineshanko, 2016) and it has been “adopted and adapted by
hundreds of scholars working throughout the world” (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 5).
Chanprasitchai and Khlaisang (2016) applied the community of inquiry framework to an
Applied Thai Traditional Medicine online learning experience involving 39 students
assuming avatar roles and entering different virtual spaces to treat patients. They found
the framework supported teaching, social, and cognitive presences and enhanced
students’ problem-solving abilities (Chanprasitchai & Khlaisang, 2016). Similarly, Cohen
and Holstein (2018) used the framework to analyze five highly successful Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs). Using the framework and content analysis of 3503 online
reviews, they determined that successful MOOCs had characteristics divided amongst the
three elements (Cohen & Holstein, 2018); unfortunately, unsuccessful MOOCs were not
analyzed as part of this study. Instead of using the community of inquiry framework as an
assessment tool, Nolan-Grant (2019) used it as the basis for the course design when
making changes to address lack of engagement in a postgraduate online module. Data
including online posts, engagement with videos, and the summative assessments from 77
students in two cohorts (one before changes were made and one after) were compared
(Nolan-Grant, 2019). Results showed increased student engagement, signaling that the
framework can be used both to analyze courses and to create them (Nolan-Grant, 2019).
In fact, Mills et al. (2016) used the framework for both the redesign and assessment of a
post-graduate nursing and midwifery course. Following redesign and implementation,
convenience sampling was used to survey 29 students and interview 10 students from the
cohort of 59 students (Mills et al., 2016). High student satisfaction with the course design
8

and implementation were reported, although the community of inquiry survey and
interviews did identify facilitation methods as a weakness in the course (Mills et al.,
2016). Although this research is only a sampling of the ways that the community of
inquiry framework has been applied in online learning, it demonstrates the benefit of
using the framework for design and assessment. Despite these benefits, there is a gap in
the literature that references using the framework outside of a learning context.
Designing a Community of Inquiry using the Community of Inquiry Framework
As stated, there is a large body of research examining the use of the community of
inquiry framework as an instructional design tool. Implementing the framework to design
an online experience requires an understanding of the differences between online and
face-to-face experiences (Garrison et al., 2000) as well as an examination of how the
framework can be practically applied.
Studies Comparing Online and Face-to-Face Results. As collaborative community
engagement methods are primarily focused on in-person interaction (Department of
Infrastructure, 2017; Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia, 2013), it
is natural to wonder whether on-line collaboration can produce equally strong solutions
as online and in-person interactions have different strengths and weaknesses (D. Garrison
et al., 2010). In the learning context, learning is measured and graded through individual
assessments or evaluation of the process or products of learners (Means et al., 2009). A
meta-analysis examining the learning effects shown in 51 studies between 1996-2008
found that students in online courses performed better academically than those engaged
in face-to-face learning (Means et al., 2009). A recent study comparing online, video
synchronous, and in-class data from 1964 students in a college-level physics course
similarly found that students completing the course online were more likely to receive
higher grades; however, they also had a higher likelihood of not completing the course
(Faulconer et al., 2018). Bowers and Kumar (2016) completed a comparative analysis of
an undergraduate course run face-to-face with 29 students and the same course run online
with 34 students. Although they stated that “studies examining student attrition in online
courses and programs have consistently identified lack of connectedness and instructor
presence as factors leading to student alienation and dropout from online courses”
(Bowers & Kumar, 2016, p. 28), through the use of mixed methods surveys, their study
9

found that students had significantly higher perceptions of teaching and social presences
in the online course (Bowers & Kumar, 2016). When viewed in combination with NolanGrant's (2019) research, this could indicate that course design could be a causal factor in
completion rates rather than the mode of delivery; however, further research would need
to be completed to determine if this was the case. Overall, the data indicates that students
studying online are assessed higher than those studying in face-to-face settings.
Studies Comparing Online and Face-to-Face Methods. The interactions and
learning processes in face-to-face and asynchronous online learning have also been
studied and found to be different (Heckman & Annabi, 2003, 2005, 2006). Three studies
by Heckman and Annabi (2003, 2005, 2006) examined eight case study transcripts using
a content analytic framework derived from the community of inquiry model. In the study,
120 university seniors participated in one face-to-face and one week-long asynchronous
online case study discussion (Heckman & Annabi, 2003, 2005, 2006). They found that in
online asynchronous learning, “students carried a much greater share of the discourse”
(Heckman & Annabi, 2006, p. 144) and students’ communications were longer and more
formal, but there were less of them. Both online and face-to-face discussion contained
social processes, but “students played a bigger role in creating a social environment”
(Heckman & Annabi, 2005, p. 10) in online discussion. There were less instances of
teaching processes in the online environment and most of the instances were actually the
students, not the teacher, which aligns with more student-to-student interaction (Heckman
& Annabi, 2005). Wider participation has also been identified as a benefit of online
methods (Xin & Feenberg, 2006). Cognitive processes in face-to-face discussion were
more focused on lower-order exploration rather than analysis; however, in both face-toface and online discussions, integration of ideas occurred (Heckman & Annabi, 2005).
This highlights some benefits of online engagement which are “increased reflection time,
more democratic participation, benefits attributable to writing” (Heckman & Annabi,
2005, p. 2), and “deep, time-consuming reasoning processes” (Aviv, 2000, p. 54) as well
as showing that although processes were different, satisfactory results were obtained from
both.
Practical Implementation of Community of Inquiry Framework. Although the
community of inquiry is a descriptive rather than prescriptive framework (Dunlap,
10

Verma, et al., 2016), it provides an excellent instructional design foundation for creating
a collaborative experience and allows the flexibility for application in different contexts.
Seven principles for creating and sustaining a community of inquiry where social,
teaching, and cognitive presences are established are presented by Vaughan et al. (2013)
as:
1. Plan for the creation of open communication and trust.
2. Plan for critical reflection and discourse.
3. Establish community and cohesion.
4. Establish inquiry dynamics (purposeful inquiry).
5. Sustain respect and responsibility.
6. Sustain inquiry that moves to resolution.
7. Ensure assessment is congruent with intended processes and outcomes. (p. 17)
Establishing Social Presence. To encourage productivity and collaboration, trust and
group identity must first be established (Garrison, 2009; Vaughan et al., 2013) and
“instructors should not over-emphasize socio-emotional or interpersonal identity at the
outset” (p. 353). An initial activity that removes unknowns about others while at the same
time focuses on course goals is a good way to begin (Garrison, 2009; Vaughan et al.,
2013). Some example activities are an introductory letter or video clip, collaboratively
setting expectations, a powerful learning experience discussion, or discussions with
previous students (Vaughan et al., 2013). Small groups rather than whole class groups
better allow for cohesion and open communication to develop (Garrison, 2009).
Cleveland-Innes (2020) proposed that a facilitator could encourage social presence by
discussing the value of social presence and collaboration in learning, the course climate
or norms, and supporting participants who express feelings or interpretations.
Additionally, the use of emotion icons (emoticons) should be encouraged as a way to
convey non-verbal behaviour and cues, clarifying message intent especially for
participants with weak English literacy (Dunlap, Bose, et al., 2016). Modelling open
communication by recognizing contributions, addressing others by name, using inclusive
pronouns, complimenting others, and responding to comments can help encourage social
presence and group cohesion (Garrison & Akyol, 2013).
Establishing Cognitive Presence. The community of inquiry’s cognitive presence is
11

based on Dewey’s practical inquiry cycle (Garrison, 2009). An issue must be presented,
explored through discourse, reflected on, analyzed, and then concluded (Garrison, 2009).
Of key importance from an instructional design perspective is how the issue is initially
presented. It must be presented in a focused way that allows for interactive discussion
rather than fragmented individual comments (Garrison, 2009). Referring back to key
concepts, making questions explicit, representing information in multiple ways, providing
links to application outside the course, providing opportunities to explore content outside
the course, and using Socratic questions are all techniques that can help establish
cognitive presence (Cleveland-Innes, 2020; Vaughan et al., 2013). Facilitation related to
metacognition and specifically structured activities are also often required to ensure that
discussion moves to integration and a conclusion (Garrison, 2009; Garrison & Akyol,
2013).
Establishing Teaching Presence. Design and organization of materials are vital prior
to the experience to ensure participants do not become confused or distracted (Garrison,
2009). Re-design and re-organization may also be required during the experience as
collaborative-constructivist experiences are not always predictable and new paths or
outcomes may need to be structured based on collaborative dialogue (Garrison, 2009;
Vaughan et al., 2013). As the teaching presence is to support development of the
cognitive and social presence, “content, cognition, and context” (Garrison & Akyol,
2013, p. 15) should all be viewed as important. Too much or too little facilitation and
direct instruction from the facilitator can adversely effect discussion, so although the
facilitator must give guidance when it is needed, participants should be empowered to
also take responsibility and control of discussions (Cleveland-Innes, 2020; Garrison,
2009; Vaughan et al., 2013). Providing specific information, clarifying misconceptions,
and summarizing discussion are also important roles, but should not always be completed
by the facilitator such as when a student has certain subject matter expertise (Garrison,
2009). Strategies proposed by Vaughan et al. (2013) include modeling things such as
timely response, sharing experiences and beliefs, and showing engagement by
summarizing discussions.

12

Theoretical Foundations
The theoretical foundation of the community of inquiry has been explored by Garrison
and Akyol (2013), Cleveland-Innes (2020), and Garrison (2016). The community of
inquiry consists of pedagogy that aligns with Dewey’s educational philosophy which
emphasized “themes of community, togetherness, collaboration, and sharing” (Gutek,
2015, p. 270) and was built on the concept that knowledge is socially constructed which
was championed by both Dewey and Vygotsky (Garrison, 2016; Garrison & Akyol,
2013; Gutek, 2015). As with collaborative community engagement, it promotes
interaction that is “open, flexible, explicit, and inquiry-based” (Cleveland-Innes, 2020, p.
85). Also in alignment with Dewey’s idea of reflective thinking, the community of
inquiry assumes that rigorously analyzing, conceptualizing, and assessing ideas through
personal reflection and public discourse is key to this collaborative learning (Garrison,
2016). This allows people to “make connections or conceptualize the relationships
between experience and ideas” (Garrison, 2016, p. 14). In Thinking Collaboratively:
Learning in a community of inquiry, Garrison (2016) explores how the combination of
individual cognitive dynamics and group dynamics can result in collaborative thinking
and how critical and reflective thinking contributes to this. Fundamental to the
community of inquiry is “a sense of shared purpose and mutual interdependence in
achieving intended learning outcomes…predicated upon open but focused
communication” (Garrison, 2016, p. 15). The social presence is important to creating the
respectful climate that supports critical discourse and respectful collaboration (Garrison,
2016) which is also key to collaborative community engagement. Even within the
definition of an educational community of inquiry, “a group of individuals who
collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct
personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding” (Vaughan et al., 2013, p. 98), the
alignment to collaborative community engagement is clear.
Makerspace
Makerspaces are “an unstructured fabrication lab outfitted with a variety of tools,
software and materials appealing to a spectrum of interests” (Hynes & Hynes, 2018, p.
868). They can empower creation, experimentation, innovation, learning, and tinkering as
well as change users’ perspectives on success and failure (Otieno, 2020). Other names for
13

makerspaces are hacker space, fab lab, technical shop, tinkering studio, and invention
studio (Forest et al., 2014; Hynes & Hynes, 2018; Otieno, 2020; Taylor et al., 2016).
Within this study, participants will be exploring three main topics related to the university
Makerspace: how the Makerspace supports users’ goals, how to best provide training, and
making the Makerspace welcoming to all users. Although Makerspaces are not the focus
of the study, existing literature relating to these topics is explored as it is used to help
design the Makerspace community of inquiry content and provide the facilitator with
required background information.
How Makerspaces Support Goals
Makerspaces can support learning and curriculum goals of institutions as well as
personal or professional goals of individuals. These spaces leverage “the desire and need
to make and create [that] comes from this inherent nature of humans as each person is
born curious, eager to understand the world around them” (Otieno, 2020, p. 31).
Makerspaces have been used in University contexts to support learning and curriculum
often using methods based on “learning by doing” or constructionism which is based on
constructivist pedagogy (McGrath, 2016; Noel et al., 2016; Otieno, 2020). It asserts “that
learners construct knowledge when they build, make, and share their artifacts with not
only peers but the public as well” (Otieno, 2020, p. 32). Forest et al. (2014) describe how
Georgia Institute of Technology has refocused their engineering curricula to be a more
hands on making, designing, and prototyping experience through the use of a university
makerspace. Their goal was to provide a space “for students to apply classroom theory to,
or simply mess about with, design-build projects, tools, materials, and mentoring within a
community of their own management, independent of curricular requirements, classroom
projects, or hierarchical structure of coursework” (Forest et al., 2014, p. 2) to facilitate
communities of practice and obtain the design and cognitive benefits of physical
modelling. They were also encouraged by literature showing that hands-on opportunities
early in engineering programs increased student retention (Forest et al., 2014). Otieno
(2020) discusses how this hands-on experience allows the learner to define their own
problem, determine potential solutions, and tinker to become “unstuck” as they iterate
through different solutions. It also aligns with Noddings’ (2005) curriculum of caring as
it develops in students an appreciation of a quality product and the ability to repair
14

broken items (Otieno, 2020).
Makerspaces have also been used in community and University contexts to support
personal and professional goals of users. As explained above, students can use
makerspaces to help them prototype their coursework, improving their ideas and designs,
but they can also use the space for personal art or engineering projects as well as
entrepreneurial pursuits (Forest et al., 2014). Rapid prototyping and digital fabrications
have allowed entrepreneurs to develop products viably on a small scale (Taylor et al.,
2016). Makerspace community and tools have also empowered users to repair broken
devices themselves and supported the design and development of custom assistive
technology and devices (Steele et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2016). Makerspaces can also
support individuals in community engagement and activism as well as allowing for the
development of career and personal skills like interacting with others, self confidence,
leadership, and technical skills (Otieno, 2020; Taylor et al., 2016). The personal and
professional goals supported by makerspaces include completion of a single project, soft
skills development and launching a career or business.
User Training at Makerspaces
The model for user training in makerspaces is intrinsically linked to how the
makerspace is administrated. Access to and oversite of university makerspaces has been
accomplished in either a bottom-up approach were students have the primary
responsibility for daily operation, maintenance, and equipment training, or a top-down
approach where these are managed by faculty and administration (Forest et al., 2014). In
student run models, a core, trained group of students trade volunteer hours (supervising
the space, maintaining equipment, and providing training) for unlimited access to the
makerspace (Forest et al., 2014). The university Makerspace pilot is currently using a
top-down approach where two administrators and one paid student control operation,
access, maintenance, and training. In the initial pilot program, the university Makerspace
was open from 1-4:30 pm Wednesdays and Fridays or upon request for groups and
training was provided on an on-demand basis by staff.
Training for makerspace users has numerous goals including supporting user safety,
developing user proficiency, and maintaining equipment in good working order. Spencer
et al. (2016) discusses strategies for training in a student run makerspace such as testing
15

potential student volunteers using a checklist of skills. Potential volunteers must
demonstrate proficiency and knowledge of safety protocols while completing the skills
checklist to make specific basic objects (Spencer et al., 2016). After demonstrating
proficiency on all equipment, they begin specialized training on one piece of equipment
to become a master, capable of repairing, troubleshooting, and advising on replacement
(Spencer et al., 2016). These volunteers then provide training for new users (Spencer et
al., 2016). Forest et al. (2014) commented that with respect to safety, “The culture of
ownership, personal awareness, and responsibility is absolutely vital to the success” (p.
13) and this is established through peer pressure, public awareness of violations,
camaraderie, and a few very simple rules. This safety culture develops within a
community of practice that involves more experienced individuals mentoring newcomers
(Forest et al., 2014).
Training can occur on an on-demand basis where users are individually trained on
equipment, a regularly scheduled basis (such as a weekly event specific to new users),
specialized courses, or events for specific user groups (Forest et al., 2014; Spencer et al.,
2016). Training videos and a website with instructions can also be used to supplement inperson training (Spencer et al., 2016). Dedicated public events where users complete a
small, structured task are often used as outreach, but did not positively impact
recruitment which happened primarily through word of mouth or through attendance on a
more in-depth course (Taylor et al., 2016). In the Georgia Institute of Technology
Innovation Studio, equipment is divided into six tool types and three difficulty levels
(Spencer et al., 2016). Users are always trained on the lowest difficulty level of
equipment in each category first and informally assessed by a trainer for proficiency
before being trained on the intermediate and most difficult equipment (Spencer et al.,
2016).
Otieno (2020) and McCue et al. (2019) discusses pedagogical practices for teaching
and learning in a makerspace that should be considered when planning training.
“Instructors in makerspaces put forth activities and learning goals that are user-centered
and interesting to various learning needs” (Otieno, 2020, p. 49). When formal classes are
conducted, some scaffolding and structure is required for students to initiate a project and
“find their bearing in the sessions” (Otieno, 2020, p. 38) including an introduction,
16

information about the project or equipment, learning goals, and chunked steps (Love et
al., 2020; McCue et al., 2019; Otieno, 2020). Using flipped-learning pedagogies can
prepare students for hands on in-person sessions where they are actively making (McCue
et al., 2019). Sometimes achievement of basic criteria in design and execution are
required before students are “allowed freedom of design” (Otieno, 2020, p. 39).
However, activities should be set up in a way to accommodate for a variety of learner
ability levels and choice in projects, potentially using a variety of resources or techniques
(McCue et al., 2019; Otieno, 2020). As part of the benefit of makerspaces is the ability to
troubleshoot and tinker, instructors should involve students in troubleshooting when they
have issues, guiding them through the process as a first step in becoming autonomous as
well as helping them understand that iteration may be necessary to achieve their desired
product (Otieno, 2020). Encouraging iteration is also supported by self-reflection,
sharing, and feedback from peers and instructors (Otieno, 2020). Supportive feedback
from instructors should allow for choice by phrasing such as, “Have you considered...?”
or “How could you refine...?” (Otieno, 2020, p. 46).
Inclusion and Accommodation in Makerspaces
Described as providing “a low barrier of entry to hands-on prototyping and fabrication
experience” (Spencer et al., 2016, p. 1), inclusion and accommodation are important
factors to consider in makerspaces as their purpose encompasses bringing together a
diverse group of people and providing equal access to resources (Hynes & Hynes, 2018;
Love et al., 2020; Noel et al., 2016; Steele et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2016).
Unfortunately, studies have shown that females, visible minorities, people with liberal
arts backgrounds, and people with disabilities are not well represented in makerspaces
(Hynes & Hynes, 2018; Noel et al., 2016; Spencer et al., 2016; Steele et al., 2018; Taylor
et al., 2016). There are many barriers to using a makerspace including physical barriers
for those with disabilities, psychological barriers such as anxiety or intimidation, preexisting ideas regarding who makerspace users are, barriers to recruiting outside of the
community that originally creates the makerspace as well as financial barriers for users
(Noel et al., 2016; Steele et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2016).
Literature outlines numerous strategies that can be used to encourage diversity in the
makerspace including training, recruitment, and design. Otieno (2020) discusses the
17

importance of planning and conducting training in a way that is flexible to accommodate
different abilities and levels of learners. Spencer et al. (2016) discusses how specifically
targeted events such as ladies night can make it less intimidating to access the
makerspace for the first time and how representative leadership can encourage continued
participation. McGrath (2016) describes how design thinking was used to create generic
user personas to assist with initial design of UC Berkeley’s makerspace to allow them to
reach specific “types” of students. Steele et al. (2018) outlines a process for improving
the usability of a specific makerspace using a consultation process that included a tour to
explain the purpose of the space, a design activity based on the human-centered design
process to allow participants to use the space, and a brainstorming session to
collaboratively identify opportunities and suggestions related to the makerspace. To make
the space more accessible to users with disabilities, Steele et al. (2018) and Love et al.
(2020) cited the following recommendations:
 wide entrances and aisles should be used with fixed locations for equipment to
permit users with visual impairments to create a mental map over time,
 reduce tripping hazards from cords by either using ceiling mounted electrical
outlets or outlets wired directly to workstations,
 using work benches with adjustable height,
 high-contrast, color coded signs, and instructions should be available in multiple
forms (electronic, posted in paper copy, etc.),
 instructions should state how to ask for assistance, make suggestions or request
adaptations to equipment,
 tools and materials should be well organized, labelled with high contrast text as
well as tactile and braille options, and available from a seated position to ensure
accessibility for wheelchair users,
 screen magnifiers and additional task lighting should be provided,
 place guards on blades and sharps,
 work with disabled users to develop appropriate training, supervision, and
accommodation plans,
 providing quiet rooms close to the makerspace for those with hearing impairments
or neurodevelopment disorders.
18

Hynes and Hynes (2018) studied the visual appeal of makerspaces to different disciplines
and genders and provided some recommendations to enhance recruitment of females and
non-engineering disciplines including open and accessible but tidy storage, high seating,
and a clean space.
Funding is also an important part of inclusion as membership costs or material costs
can be a barrier to low income individuals such as students (Noel et al., 2016).
Makerspaces have a variety of funding designs. Some are completely free to use, some
require a membership fee, and some require users to provide or purchase their own offthe-shelf consumables (except materials such as feedstock for 3D printers) (Forest et al.,
2014; Taylor et al., 2016). Some makerspaces obtain funding by having members
complete small jobs for local businesses (Taylor et al., 2016) or through grants connected
to course work that requires use of the makerspace (Forest et al., 2014). Courses are
normally offered as part of the membership fee, free of charge or for a small material fee
(Forest et al., 2014). The initial pilot program for the university makerspace was free for
staff and students to use and provided all consumable materials.
Literature Summary
Literature demonstrates the validity and reliability of the community of inquiry
framework. There are many examples of the community of inquiry framework being used
in educational settings to assess or design online learning; however, no examples can be
found outside this context. There is substantial literature comparing online and face-toface courses which support the supposition that well-designed online community
engagement could produce strong collaboration. Guidance relating to the design of
Communities of Inquiry provide practical suggestions as to how this may be
accomplished. As collaboration is a required element for social constructivist learning,
literature supports the premise that the community of inquiry framework could be
appropriate to use in an online community engagement setting where robust models do
not currently exist. Literature demonstrates that how specific makerspaces support user
goals, conduct training, and promote inclusion is context-specific; therefore, exploring
these issues in a specific context is worthwhile. The next section will describe how online
community member engagement in the Makerspace community of inquiry was explored
to determine if the community of inquiry framework is appropriate in this setting.
19

20

Chapter 3: Methods
The previous two chapters outlined the necessity for the research, previous related
research, and the research questions. This chapter details the research design including
matters related to epistemology, participant information, data collection methods, and
data analysis.
Design and Matters Related to Epistemology
The goal of the research was to examine a method of collaborative, online community
engagement to determine if it could be recommended to community organizations as a
framework that collaboratively engages community members who were inhibited from
participating in face-to-face engagement opportunities. Methods used permitted an
examination of how the chosen framework functioned in a community engagement
setting.
Justification of Method Selection
As described at the end of the literature review, the aim of this study was to facilitate
the investigation of how the community of inquiry framework functions in a community
engagement setting. The specific research questions investigated were:
1. How did the community of inquiry framework facilitate collaborative community
engagement in an online, asynchronous space?
2. What were the impediments (if any) to the establishment of the community of
inquiry model in a community engagement setting?
As these research questions involved deep exploration of the facilitation process,
online space design, and interaction during specific events, a qualitative instrumental case
study approach was selected (Stake, 1995; Yazan, 2015). “Case studies are particularly
useful in investigating complex, dynamic phenomena as situated in context” (Butler et
al., 2014, p. 8) and quantitative methods would not have allowed for such an in-depth
examination of how the framework functioned nor how the space impacted interactions.
One of the defining features of case study research is that it focuses on deeply
investigating a single issue within a bounded system, that is, it is particularistic (Creswell
et al., 2007; Stake, 1995; Yazan, 2015). In this research, two cases were studied, each of
which was bounded by time, the system in which interaction occurred, as well as the
21

specific group of participants. The case study was aimed at understanding how the
community of inquiry functioned in a community engagement setting rather than
developing an understanding of the participants themselves, so it was an instrumental
case study rather than an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1995). In summary, the community
of inquiry framework was used to design online asynchronous collaborative community
engagement events and case study qualitative methods were used to explore them.
It was the discourse within the community of inquiry that was the focus of this
research because it is within and through discourse that collaboration occurs, and
solutions are documented. Although case study research normally involves multiple data
sources to “capture the case under study in its complexity and entirety” (Yazan, 2015, p.
142), in this research, it was important to directly examine the discourse that occurs
rather than participants’ reflections as these might not have show an accurate or complete
picture of how the framework actually functioned. As the research questions were both
focused on how the framework functioned rather than participants’ experience in the
study, only the transcripts of the discourse within the community of inquiry and initial emails to participants were used. This is supported by Bhattacherjee (2012) which
recommends collecting only data relevant to the research questions.
Researcher Statement. To support transparency, I am providing a summary of my
experiences, assumptions, and biases as they relate to this research. I am currently a
student in the master’s in education program at Thompson Rivers University and have
previously completed a Graduate Diploma in Technology-Enhanced Learning and
Design, a Masters in Human Factors, and a Bachelors in Mathematics. Prior to beginning
my master’s in education, I served for twenty years in the Canadian Armed Forces as an
Aerospace Engineering Officer. In this capacity, I completed a wide range of leadership
and specialist roles where it was apparent to me how important it is to listen to,
acknowledge, and incorporate the perspectives of those serving with me into leadership
and technical decisions. The rich experiences and perspectives of those I served with
supported stronger solutions, especially when the issue was complex. I strongly believe
that it is essential to hear the voices and perspectives of community members when
addressing community problems. Additionally, I took on instructional design and
instructor roles at various times in my career, leading me to value strong instructional
22

design planning processes. When I learned about the community of inquiry model
partway through my studies, the model really resonated with me. My own experiences
with online learning while taking my graduate diploma through Royal Roads University
and my Masters through Thompson Rivers University has reinforced my belief that deep
collaborative learning can be completed through online asynchronous courses if a
community of inquiry is developed. Although I analyzed the data in this study through a
critical lens, my underlying goal was to support inclusion in community engagement by
providing community organizations with additional information they could apply to
engage community members in asynchronous, online collaboration.
Description of Study
A great opportunity existed to leverage the strengths of the community of inquiry
framework in a community engagement context at the university Makerspace where
administrators were seeking user feedback and ideas on how to improve the space.
University Makerspace. A Makerspace pilot project operating for one year in a
western-Canada university offers students and staff access to a virtual reality exploration
room, educational programmable robots, 3D printers and scanners, basic electronics, a
programmable sewing machine, and a vinyl cutter.
Makerspace community of inquiry Questions. After operating for two months,
communities of inquiry were conducted with university makerspace users to explore
three key questions and inform decisions about the makerspace. The questions explored
were:
1. How does the content (workshops, instruction, etc.) and technologies available in
the makerspace relate to user’s personal or professional goals and what else do users
need to support their goals?
2. How can the Makerspace best provide training for certain technologies to ensure
safety of users and equipment while allowing flexibility and without restricting
access?
3. How does the Makerspace ensure it is welcoming to all users regardless of their
program, level of study, gender identity, nationality, role at the university, and
economic background?
Context. When applying the community of inquiry model to community engagement
23

for the purpose of collaboration with diverse stakeholders, it was critical to generate
collegial trust (Cosner, 2009) and a climate in which “members stay problem focused,
listen to and understand one another, feel free to take risks, and be willing to compensate
for one another” (Hill, 2013, p. 301). It was also important to ensure that the design of the
makerspace community of inquiry required ending in a solution as involvement in the
process and a strong solution are both important (Barnes & Schmitz, 2016).
The community in the context of this study included staff and students of the
university. Thus, all the study participants can be assumed to have a high literacy rate
(although some students might have been English as an additional language students) and
some experience working in an online setting. As students and staff, all participants had
easy access to a computer device such as a computer, ablet, or mobile phone. In a wider
community context, literacy, experience with, and access to computer devices may be
barriers that might inhibit implementation of these methods. The topic of the study was
also one that people were interested in, but not emotionally upset about. This may differ
from other community engagement topics where community members may have strong
feelings and opinions about an issue. Despite these differences, there were many
similarities with other community engagement work. Although a small draw prize was
offered to thank participants for their time, the main benefit was the potential
improvement of the Makerspace (an aspect of their community) which is the benefit of
participation in community engagement initiatives. Some participants knew each other
prior to the study, and some did not which is similar to community engagement work
where some community members meet for the first time. The online tools used are open
source, easy to use tools, and there are many similar tools available that community
organizations could select or use.
Data Collection Methods
Prior to data collection, the university research ethics board granted study approval as
shown in Appendix 6. The data collected was the electronic record of participant activity
and discussion online about the Makerspace in the Mattermost forum, created, organized,
and facilitated using the community of inquiry framework. The primary researcher, Lorri
Weaver, facilitated conversations using facilitator guidelines from Heckman and Annabi
(2005).
24

Participants
The study included 10 online participants split into a group of six and a group of four
based on participant availability. Participants consisted of staff and students who used the
makerspace during its pilot program, faculty who expressed interest in using the space for
their classes, staff with expertise in the makerspace tools, and staff with subject matter
expertise about the issues or questions that the makerspace community of inquiry
addressed. All participants were stakeholders who could contribute in some way to
improving the makerspace. When students used the makerspace during the makerspace
pilot program, they were asked if they wished to voluntarily provide their e-mail address
so that they could be invited to participate in follow-up activities focused on improving
and shaping the makerspace. These e-mails were used to recruit student participants using
the recruitment e-mail shown at Appendix 3. As the Bachelor of Education Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (BEd STEM) class also used the space, the
recruitment e-mail was also sent out to BEd STEM students through the program
coordinator. Staff and faculty participants were also selectively recruited through the
makerspace coordinators based on their subject matter expertise and previously expressed
interest. Three recruitment e-mails were sent to all groups until 10 participants had
volunteered. Research consent was obtained from participants by electronic survey as
shown in Appendix 7.
Facilitation Team
Schmitz (2017) suggests that within a community engagement context, it is important
that the facilitation team relates to the target population with respect to experience with
the issue, demographic relevance, geographic relevance, and a connection with them. The
primary researcher, Lorri Weaver, has been a user of the university makerspace during
the pilot program and was at the time of the study, a mature student at the university.
Other members of the team included the Makerspace administrators, Erin and Franklin,
who set-up, used, and facilitated the university Makerspace and were at the time of the
study, staff at the university. Due to this diversity, the team was well positioned to relate
to the target audience from a community engagement perspective.
Makerspace Community of Inquiry Design
The community of inquiry model described at an implementation level by Cleveland25

Innes (2020) was used for the community of inquiry design shown at Appendix 4.
Although the makerspace community of inquiry was designed to take only 1.75 hours of
participants’ time, it was structured in a way to facilitate the natural and progressive
development of social presence (Garrison & Akyol, 2013).
Some of the decisions that have been known to influence group collaboration activities
in online spaces include the type of technology or platform, the structure of the group,
group members’ past experience, task design, and the alignment of individual goals
(Aviv, 2000; Heckman & Annabi, 2005). Aviv (2000) suggests “the basic structural
components of effective cooperation are positive interdependence, group reflection,
individual accountability, promotive interaction, and social skills” (p. 58). To foster
positive interdependence, sharing information, setting group goals, assigning roles, and
positively reinforcing group results during brief task reflection can be used (Aviv, 2000).
Prior studies (e.g. Cox & Cox, 2008; Sun & Chen, 2016) have indicated that
“asynchronous, threaded discussions can be effective in creating a collaborative learning
environment as well as interpersonal and group dynamics” (Sun & Chen, 2016, p. 169).
Based on this research, I decided on the use of two asynchronous platforms, Mattermost
and Etherpad prior to conducting the research. During the study, the decision was made
to focus on the development of threaded discussion in Mattermost rather than introduce
participants to a second software tool, so although available, Etherpad was not used in the
study.
Mattermost. Mattermost is the platform that was used for the online discussion.
Mattermost is an open source software tool that allows threaded group messaging and file
sharing similar to Slack (Mattermost, 2020). Some features that make it a good choice for
this project are the search capability (users can easily search discussions), ability for the
facilitator to attract users attention to certain posts through the use of mentions or pins,
channels to create discussion topics, and security features.
Etherpad. Etherpad is a text-based online editor that was available to be used for the
development and refinement of specific collaborative solutions (for example to develop a
list of the minimum training required for each piece of equipment) (The Etherpad
Foundation, n.d.).

26

Security Features. Both Mattermost and Ethernet were set up through the university’s
open learning center. The data was hosted on BC Net Educloud Servers managed by the
university. It was encrypted end-to-end and inaccessible from the open web or search
engines. Log-in and passwords were created by each user of Mattermost. Etherpads could
have been accessed through URL links that are obscure and not guessable.
Data Collection
Data collection involved completing a scrolling screen capture of Mattermost
discussions using chrome screen capture so that the participant and facilitator viewpoint
could referenced. The .pdf of this screen capture was then downloaded and then edited in
Adobe Acrobat for text recognition. Photos and emojis remained images within the
document. The only video file posted to Mattermost was posted by the instructor and
contained content information relating to trigger 3. No audio files were posted in
Mattermost, but had they been, they would have been transcribed by hand into a text
document.
Data Analysis
Collected discussions were coded using codes generated from the community of
inquiry model in NVivo 12. This analysis used a combination of inductive coding and
deductive coding from Heckman and Annabi (2005), a coding structure that combines the
community of inquiry framework with a content analysis approach. I chose to use
Heckman and Annabi’s (2005) framework to code the data because it is based on the
community of inquiry framework, but they have excluded instructional design aspects
from coding as they have assumed them as antecedent factors. As I used the community
of inquiry framework in the instructional design and was viewing how it functions during
data analysis, I did not want to include these design factors as part of the analysis. In
keeping with the instrumental case study approach, the analysis was used to explore and
make assertions around how the community of inquiry framework worked to facilitate
collaborative community engagement and what were the impediments to its realization
(Creswell et al., 2007; Stake, 1995). Using a robust deductive coding structure allowed
for the data to be consolidated, reduced, and interpreted which is consistent with
Merriam’s analytical approach to case study research (Yazan, 2015).
27

Deductive Coding Structure
The coding structure used was developed by Heckman and Annabi (2005). It focuses
on four processes that act to generate the social, cognitive, and teaching presences in
community of inquiry, which are social process, cognitive process, teaching process
(modified to facilitating process to fit the community engagement context), and discourse
process. This coding structure uses the community of inquiry framework (Garrison et al.,
2000) and content analysis methods (Aviv, 2000) as a basis. Heckman and Annabi’s
(2005) coding structure consists of three levels of coding, the four structuring processes,
sub-categories and specific indicators. The coding structure was modified prior to data
analysis to fit a community engagement setting. Modifications to the coding structure
made prior to the data analysis are shown in Appendix 2 and the complete modified
coding structure is shown in Appendix 1.
Inductive Coding Structure
Similar to Heckman and Annabi (2005), inductive methods were used to provide
greater granularity and insight to the processes and discussion patterns. Specifically,
during data analysis, manifest indicators were grouped and linked to latent variables
(Heckman & Annabi, 2005). These latent variables have been added to the coding
structure and are shown in blue in Appendix 1. Cases were also created for the day of the
study, participants, and trigger questions.
Additional Subcategories. Several subcategories were added to the coding
framework indicators as shown in blue in Appendix 1. It was thought during coding that
these additional subcategories provided greater granularity and specificity to the coding;
however, once the data was analyzed, it was apparent that they were not required as they
did not provide the researcher with additional insight.
Additional Discourse Indicator. One additional discourse indicator was added to the
coding framework to show a response to a participant by the facilitator. This additional
indicator allowed the researcher to differentiate between when the facilitator was
initiating a topic or discussion and when the facilitator was responding to a participant.
This additional indicator provided some insight into the discussion patterns and facilitator
responsiveness.
Adding Modelling Social Processes Category. During coding, it was apparent that
28

there was significant use of social processes. However, when using coding stripes to look
for patterns, the contribution of the facilitator was not immediately apparent. The
facilitator also used social processes deliberately to model these for participants which
was seen to be part of the facilitator role. To add clarity to the coding and differentiate
between social processes used as a part of the facilitator role, a “modelling social
processes” category was added to the facilitator category.
Coding Cases. Three case classifications were created to allow data exploration using
the NVivo 12 query tool. Cases were added to show the day of the study that a post was
made (day 1 – day 13). Note that posts made prior to the first day of the study by the
facilitator were coded as day 1. Each participant was also given a case to allow for
individual participation patterns to be examined (participant 1 – participant 10). Finally,
data was assigned a case based on the trigger question being initiated or responded to
(trigger 1 facilitator – trigger 3 facilitator, trigger 1 response – trigger 3 response).
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness was enhanced in four ways: interrater comparison, rich description of
data, transparency, and grounding in validated framework and coding structure.
 Interrater comparison: Members of the research team worked together to establish
coding procedures by independently coding the same piece of discourse and
comparing their results. This supports a “comprehensive and accurate description of
the case” (Yazan, 2015, p. 147) while acknowledging that there are multiple valid
perspectives of the data.
 Rich description of data: A thick or rich description of the data was provided
through the use of graphs, charts, quotes, and description of the context. These were
used to support identified trends as well as external validity (Korstjens & Moser,
2018; Yazan, 2015).
 Transparency: I have provided a researcher statement including my experiences,
assumptions, and biases to enable readers to understand how these may have
affected my interpretation of the data. Procedures, decisions, and data collection
will be documented so that it can be used as an audit trail. This supports Creswell’s
(2007) validation and evaluation criteria.
 Grounding in validated framework and coding structure: The research builds on a
29

previously validated framework (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Heilporn & Lakhal, 2020)
and uses an existing coding structure (Heckman & Annabi, 2003, 2005, 2006) as
the basis for data analysis.

30

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
This study is focused on determining how the community of inquiry framework
facilitates community engagement in an online, asynchronous space as well as identifying
impediments to the establishment of the community of inquiry model in a community
engagement setting. To study this, ten members of the university community with an
interest or experience in the pilot makerspace program were recruited and divided into
two groups to use asynchronous communication in a community of inquiry to discuss
three topics over the course of two weeks. The community of inquiry framework,
specifically the concept of developing social, cognitive, and teaching presences, was used
to design the participant experience in Mattermost, a chat tool. This framework was then
used to analyze communication.
Using NVivo software, transcripts of the communication within the community of
inquiry were coded using a combination of inductive coding and deductive coding from
Heckman and Annabi (2005) shown in Appendix 1. In this chapter, we look at an
overview of the findings and this is followed by an in-depth look at findings relating to
each research question. Some of the data shared in this chapter includes number of words,
instances of responses, and participant and facilitator quotes. This data supports
observations relating to trends that occurred in the transcripts, but as this is a qualitative
study, conclusions are based on observations rather than quantitative data.
Overview of Findings
Figure 2 illustrates the coding themes within a hierarchy chart based on the number of
instances codes were used. It shows that the three presences described in the community
of inquiry model, social, cognitive, and teaching (shown as facilitation) presences,
existed within the communication studied.

31

Figure 2
Distribution of Processes Based on the Number of Instances Coded

As demonstrated in Figure 2, instances of coding relating to facilitation processes
showed strong facilitator presence throughout the study. This was particularly apparent
after it was observed early in the first study group that participants did not post without
prompts from the facilitator. Analysis of the coding demonstrated the development and
maintenance of social presence within the community of inquiry lead by facilitator
modelling. Specifically, the interactive response component of social presence was
developed and maintained throughout the study. Participants also moved from providing
rote factual responses to information exchange within the cognitive, exploration process,
providing more detailed and lengthy responses as the study progressed. However,
participants did not complete analysis and integration processes within the study and
interactions between participants were limited. So, neither study group moved through
the entire inquiry process to achieve solutions or resolutions collaboratively within the
time allocated for the study.
As shown in Figure 3, several participants (participants 1, 6, and 9) only completed
one introductory post. These participants could be considered dropouts from the study.
However, the remaining participants posted at least twice with half of the participants
responding to two trigger questions and two participants responding to all three trigger
questions.
32

Figure 3
Number of Words Coded for Each Participant Based on Trigger Questions

1000
900
800

Number of Words

700

459

600
Trigger 3

500
139

400

Trigger 2
Trigger 1

183

300
238

430

200

46

47
80

1

2

100
0

61

118
69
3

239

156
37
4

445

5
6
Participants

113
7

60
8

9

10

The focused nature of the discussion can be seen in the word cloud shown in Figure 4
which shows the fifty most used words in participant responses. Discussion centered
around using the space, the technology involved, and experiences, programs, or projects.
Some examples of participant statements are detailed in Table 2. Generally, the trigger
questions and facilitation were successful in keeping participants focused on topic.

33

Figure 4
Fifty most frequently used words in participant responses

Note. Stop words such as conjunctions, prepositions, and the university name were
removed.

34

Table 2
Examples of participant statements
Participant7: I really like the ideas of seminars a 2 hour seminar to learn the basics of
something might be doable for students. Incorporating indigenous/local/artists/crafts
people/TRU students - domestic and international teaching what they know of creating to
others. Also something on making small replacement parts for fixing things might be an idea.
Participant8: There probably could be several types of workshops or sessions. For someone
like myself, there could be general interest options for a tour of the space and overview of the
tools. This could be useful just to introduce the space to staff, faculty and students. More
specific hands-on experience sessions with the technologies could increase confidence for
users and be used to explore applications. For faculty who haven't used the technology, an
experiential introduction at the Teaching Practices Colloquium would be really helpful. Help
us to imagine the technologies in our courses.
Participant10: Hi it's Participant10 again, My whole focus for the summer is to learn
animation using after effects and 3D modelling softwares like blender and Maya. Come fall!!
I'll start all my 3D projects at maker space and work there. Until then, I feel this platform
should be talked about more. I've already started talking about this with anyone I know. I
would recommend all students to do the same. This is great place for creators to finish their
dream art projects.
Note: Participant usernames and names have been replaced within the excerpt with their
participant numbers.

The remainder of the results section will be devoted to exploring in more detail how
each of the three presences facilitated community engagement as well as some obstacles
observed in the study that may have inhibited the establishment of the community of
inquiry model within the community engagement setting.
How the Community of Inquiry Framework Facilitates Community Engagement
The community of inquiry model, consisting of social, cognitive, and teaching
(facilitating) presences, was used to select the online space, create triggers to prompt new
lines of discussion, and guide facilitator behaviour during the study. The overall goal of
35

the community engagement within this study was to have participants share and discuss
ideas around three main topics which included things that the makerspace could do to
support user goals, the dynamic between access and training, and making the space
welcoming. The three triggers associated with these topics are shown in Appendix 4 and
were designed to focus participants on these issues and move the participants from
sharing that was more social to sharing that involved more cognitive processes.
Facilitation responses and questions were also focused with cognitive and social
development in mind. As shown in Table 3, this aspect of the design and facilitation was
successful as the first trigger elicited a large amount of social processes from all
categories where later trigger questions elicited more instances from interactive response,
predominately continuing a thread. Trigger 2 also involved more information exchange as
opposed to rote factual response. Due to time constraints, participants did not have equal
amount of time to respond to trigger 3; therefore, the coding instances and word count
data is not necessarily relevant to the progression observed amongst the participants.
Table 3
Instances and words coded as social and cognitive processes in participant responses
based on trigger questions

Affective Response
Social
Cohesive Response
Processes
Interactive Response
Rote
factual
Exploration response
Cognitive
Information
Processes
exchange
Analysis
Integration

Participant Responses by Trigger
Trigger 1
Trigger 2
Trigger 3
Instances Words Instances Words Instances Words
22
547
1
17
2
24
32
60
0
0
0
0
10
265
15
1017
2
145
9

464

0

0

0

0

10

544

13

946

4

176

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

The Role of Cognitive Processes
As stated above, the goal of the community engagement was to collaboratively
36

develop solutions or responses to the trigger topics. So, to be completely successful,
participants would engage in the whole inquiry process, exchanging information with
each other; analyzing and clarifying the issue; and finally, connecting and evaluating
ideas to produce conclusions and recommendations (Garrison et al., 2010; Heckman &
Annabi, 2005; Huang et al., 2018; Sun & Chen, 2016). Completion of this process
requires strong cognitive presence. Statements by participants that demonstrate cognitive
presence were coded as cognitive process statements using deductive coding developed
by Heckman and Annabi (2005). Although it was observed that participants did remain
on-topic and shared their ideas, they did not move beyond this exploration phase within
the study and the number of instances of cognitive processes decreased with later trigger
questions as shown in Table 3.
Even though collaborative solutions were not achieved, the study does show progress
in the inquiry process and development of cognitive processes. The decrease in the
instances of cognitive processes can be attributed to participants who dropped out after
one post and those that responded to only the first trigger question. It was also observed
that the detail and depth of individual responses increased as the study progressed. As
shown in Table 4, the average words per instance increased significantly between trigger
1 and trigger 2. Despite the increase in response word count and complexity, as shown in
Figure 5, many of the trigger 2 responses did not occur until the last two days of the
study, days 11 and 12. As the facilitator was trying to elicit responses to trigger 2 topic,
trigger 3 was not presented to the whole group. Instead, trigger 3 was posed individually
to those participants who responded to trigger 2. As trigger 3 was not fully explored due
to time constraints, the data associated with it is not necessarily relevant to the
progression observed amongst the participants. The increase in word count per response
and the increase in response detail and depth show that greater exploration of topics
occurred as the study progressed. So, although analysis and integration were not achieved
within this study, cognitive processes did develop and these enabled community
engagement at the “involve” or “consult” level where concerns and aspirations of
community participants are listened to and potentially reflected in the solutions
administrators develop (International Association for Public Participation, 2018).

37

Table 4
Average words per instance of cognitive processes based on triggers

Exploration

Cognitive
Processes

Rote factual response
Information exchange

Analysis
Integration

Trigger 1
52
54
0
0

Trigger 2
0
72
0
0

Trigger 3
0
44
0
0

Figure 5
Number of participant posts by trigger on each day of the study

9
8
Number of Posts

7
6
5

Trigger 1

4

Trigger 2

3

Trigger 3

2
1
0
1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9
Day of Study

1 0 11 1 2 1 3

The Role of Social Presence
As stated above, the development of social presence was observed to align with the
development of cognitive presence in that social presence shifted to primarily interactive
as participants began to share ideas rather than just experiences and personal goals. As
shown in Table 5, interactive response consisted of asking questions, complimenting
other participants, continuing a thread, and expressing agreement. Although not coded as
38

social presence, observations of the content of individual responses showed most
participants only responded with content that related directly to them, their experience, or
their future aspirations as disclosed during trigger 1 discussions.
Table 5
Instances of Social Processes based on Trigger

Affective
Response
Cohesive
Response

Interactive
Response

Emotional Expression
Self-disclosure
Use of humor
Addresses or refers to the group using
inclusive pronouns
Phatics, salutations
Vocatives
Asking questions
Complimenting, expressing
appreciation
Continuing a thread
Expressing agreement
Quoting from others' messages
Referring explicitly to others'
messages

Participant Responses by Trigger
Trigger 1
Trigger 2
Trigger 3
5
1
2
15
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
16
17
2
1

0
0
3
2

0
0
1
1

8
2
0
0

13
3
0
0

2
0
0
0

Despite the observed alignment between the development of cognitive presence and
the shift in social presence to predominantly interactive, at a participant level, social
presence did not align with individual engagement. No trends were noted between
participant’s use of social processes and the number of instances a participant posted nor
the number of words participants wrote. There were no trends observed that linked the
instances or type of social process used by individual participants with participant
dropout or participants who only responded to the first trigger question. Observations of
participant heterogeneity with respect to participation intensity aligns with previous
studies of online discussions (Chen & Poquet, 2020). Thus, although social presence
developed within the study and it was observed that interactive social processes
dominated as cognitive processes developed, it is unclear from this study, the role that
39

social processes played in facilitating community engagement.
The Role of Facilitator Presence
As indicated in Figure 2, strong facilitator presence was coded in transcripts of the
Mattermost discussion. Although literature suggested that too much facilitation can
adversely effect discussion and it is desirable for participants to take on facilitation roles
(Cleveland-Innes, 2020; Garrison, 2009; Vaughan et al., 2013), it was apparent early in
the first study group that participants were not posting unless prompted by the facilitator.
Based on these observations, the facilitator engaged more prominently through the
remainder of the study to encourage and support participation and the development of
social and cognitive presences. As participants did not take on facilitation roles during the
study and only posted when prompted, the facilitator presence lead by the facilitator was
necessary to prompt the community engagement that occurred.
Based on study of coding shown in Table 6 as well as the facilitator’s own experience
in teaching, it was observed that although strong facilitation was necessary, the facilitator
role in this situation differed greatly from the teacher’s role in a class. The focus of the
facilitation was primarily on encouraging and acknowledging participants, drawing
participants into the discussion, modelling social discourse, providing discussion strategy,
asking questions, and providing some information about the makerspace itself. As the
goal of the community engagement was to have participants discuss and collaborate
rather than learn skills or knowledge, the facilitator was not guiding participants towards
learning objectives, but instead was primarily encouraging positive participation through
prompts and modelling. Within the study, I observed that the teaching or educating role
in community engagement is minimal and the facilitation role takes precedence.

40

Table 6
Instances and words coded as facilitation process based on trigger questions

Ask questions
Confirm understanding
Diagnose
misconceptions
Discussion strategy
Directions Focus the discussion
on specific issues
and
Instructions Inject knowledge from
diverse sources
Present content
Responding to
technical concerns
Summarize the
discussion
Assessing the efficacy
of the process
Drawing in
participants, prompting
discussion
Encouraging,
acknowledging, or
reinforcing participant
Facilitating
contributions
Discourse
Identifying areas of
agreement or
disagreement
Seeking to reach
consensus or
understanding
Setting the climate for
collaboration
Modelling Affective Response
Cohesive Response
Social
Processes
Interactive Response

Facilitation by Trigger
Trigger 1
Trigger 2
Trigger 3
Instances Words Instances Words Instances Words
23
664
17
492
2
59
2
84
0
0
0
0
1

58

1

49

0

0

3

75

5

147

0

0

4

90

3

91

3

89

1

21

2

95

0

0

2

30

9

237

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

101

2

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

145

7

292

4

76

17

225

12

229

4

83

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

4

1

14

0

0

10
43
30

262
68
1211

1
26
20

2
71
864

0
6
5

0
14
169

41

Although not included in the original coding structure, within the community of
inquiry framework, literature asserts that part of the facilitator’s role is to model open
communication as this helps encourage social presence (Garrison & Akyol, 2013).
During data analysis, modelling social processes was added as a category within
facilitation with subcategories that mirrored the social processes category. As shown in
Table 7, within the study, the facilitator modelled social processes and these processes
were also used by participants. Social processes that were not used or rarely used by the
facilitator were also not used or rarely used by the participants such as the use of humor
and quoting from others’ messages. Facilitator presence in the form of modelling social
processes functioned to promote the establishment of a social presence.
Table 7
Instances of Social Processes Modelled by the Facilitator and Used by the Participants
Modelling Social
Processes
Social Processes
(Facilitator)
(Participants)
13
25
Affective Response
8
8
Emotional Expression
5
16
Self-disclosure
0
2
Use of humor
95
39
Cohesive Response
9
6
Refers to the group using inclusive pronouns
44
19
Phatics, salutations
75
21
Vocatives
57
31
Interactive Response
42
6
Asking questions
13
7
Complimenting, expressing appreciation
33
27
Continuing a thread
7
4
Expressing agreement
0
0
Quoting from others' messages
4
0
Referring explicitly to others' messages
Note: When coding instances of child categories overlap, parent categories only reflect
one instance (e.g. if a statement is coded both as continuing a thread and as asking
questions, interactive response reflects only one instance).

42

Impediments to the Establishment of the Community of Inquiry Model in a
Community Engagement Setting
When analyzing the data, it was apparent that some factors may have inhibited the
community of inquiry model from developing fully. Specifically, these factors may have
played a role in curtailing the development of the cognitive presence, preventing the
completion of the inquiry cycle. Among other things, completing the inquiry cycle
requires active engagement from participants as well as some interaction between
participants. Lower engagement levels observed in the number of participant posts and
post frequency may have been influenced by participant motivation as well as the
asynchronous nature of the discussions. Development of interaction between participants
could have been influenced by the short duration of the study and the participants’
willingness to engage authentically and meaningfully with each other. It is possible that
participant motivation, participants’ willingness to engage with each other, the
asynchronous discussion, and the short duration of the study inhibited the establishment
of the community of inquiry and the completion of the inquiry cycle.
Participant Motivation
Engagement is directly related to motivation (Jiang & Albarracín, 2019). Participant
motivation was not examined directly through surveys nor through any type of
motivation assessment or scale; however, instances and frequency of participant posts
were available. The number of days that participants posted along with the number of
times they posted could be linked to their motivation to respond to questions posed by the
facilitator as the facilitator responded to all participant utterances and almost always
asked a follow-up question. The Mattermost system notified participants by email when
they were tagged in a response. Although all participants logged in and posted an
introduction post, as shown in Figure 6, three participants did not post after their first
post. Additionally, even participants who were very engaged at specific times did not
remain engaged consistently throughout the study with three additional participants
posting on only two days of the study. Three participants posted on three days of the
study and one participant spread posts out over five days.

43

Figure 6
Number of posts by individual participants by day of the study

7

5
4
3
2
9

1

7

0

5
1

2

3

4

5

6

3
7

8

9

10

11

1
12

13

Day of Study

Within the study, there were no extrinsic motivators (like grades provided in an
academic setting) to prompt posting, so intrinsic motivation was relied on. It was
observed that most participants responded more quickly to discussion and questions that
related directly to their own interests or were specific to them. Except for one participant
who expressed general knowledge about makerspaces, participants did not engage with
more abstract topics until prompted with questions that tied to their personal interests or
background. Lack of extrinsic motivators is an important difference between an
educational and a community engagement setting and could be one of the factors that
inhibited engagement.
Willingness to Engage with Other Participants
By studying the content of individual responses, it was apparent that participants in the
study engaged primarily with the facilitator and there were no instances where they
44

Participant

Number of Posts

6

overtly disagreed with another participant. Throughout the study, participants primarily
interacted with the facilitator even when the facilitator attempted to link their discussion
or encourage collaborative discussion based on their interests or experiences as shown in
Table 8. There were two instances where participants overtly agreed with another
participant; however, the named participant did not respond to this and the instances did
not develop into discussion. There were several cases where participants presented a
different perspective to other participants; however, this was completed in a way that
made it appear that they were agreeing or the perspective they presented was not linked
in any way to the previous comment. Sherry (2014) views “disagreement as a productive
mode of collaboration in which different perspectives are developed and revised in
sociable tension with others” (p. 142). Xin and Feenberg (2006) emphasize that
collaborative discourse necessitates participants interacting ‘in pursuit of shared
understanding and convergence” (p. 3). Thus, interaction with other participants is
necessary to collaboration even if the interacting participants do not agree. As the goal of
the community engagement involved collaboration, the lack of engagement between
participants was significant.

45

Table 8
Examples of the facilitator attempting to create interaction
Facilitator: …Awesome! @Participant5 and @Participant1 what do you think the
makerspace could do to help out a creator like Participant10 who is getting ready to “test” and
market his work…?
Facilitator: … Hi Participant4, Participant1 and Participant10! You have some very
interesting ideas relating to exploring the possibilities of the technology in the TRU
Makerspace (as it relates to education, video games, books, robotics/coding, etc.) Could you
three discuss how the TRU Makerspace could help users wanting to explore possibilities in
this way? What are some things it could do to support teachers, researchers or those with
individual innovative ideas wanting to explore possibilities? How could it support users
initially as well as continue to enable them as they learn more and explore more?
@Participant1 @Participant10 @Participant4
Note: Participant usernames and names have been replaced within the excerpt with their
participant numbers.

Synchronous versus Asynchronous Discussion
As shown in Figure 6, four participants posted four or more times on a single day. In
three of these cases, this was attributable to a clustered discussion with the facilitator
where the facilitator’s response occurred within five minutes of a participant’s post. This
quick response prompted synchronous chat and greater engagement from participants. In
the case of one participant, multiple posts occurred on the last day of the study as the
participant reviewed and responded to multiple discussion threads. Although facilitator
response within five minutes of a participant post did not guarantee a participant
response, slower responses to posts by the facilitator resulted in delayed response from
participants and generated less back and forth discussion. Although Heckman and Annabi
(2005) found more lower order cognitive processes in synchronous, face-to-face
discussion, analysis and review of the data did not indicate that asynchronous posts
contained deeper cognitive processes. The lack of back and forth discussion that resulted
from asynchronous communication was one of the factors that may have inhibited the
46

inquiry cycle.
Study Duration
Another significant factor that may have inhibited the inquiry cycle was time. The
study was only two weeks long and was supposed to take less than two hours of
participants’ time. As stated above, social and cognitive presence showed development
through the study, however, analysis and integration of participant perspectives did not
occur. It is possible that the study did not provide sufficient time for the social and
cognitive processes to develop. Specifically, participants had not established a
relationship with each other and the comfort level to question or analyze each other’s
ideas. This is necessary for the inquiry cycle as well as collaboration.
Summary
In summary, the community of inquiry model supported community engagement
within this study. While collaborative community engagement did not occur as
participants did not engage in analysis or integration, cognitive processes were
developing within the study and lower levels of community engagement were achieved.
It appears that the development of cognitive processes was supported by the development
of social processes although these processes do not appear linked to individual participant
engagement. It is clear that facilitation presence differed from teaching presence, but was
critical to the development and maintenance of social and cognitive presences.
Some of the factors that may have inhibited participants from completing analysis and
integration, and thus the inquiry cycle, include: participant motivation, lack of
engagement between participants, response timing in asynchronous discussion, and the
overall time available to complete the study. This work suggests areas of focus for
facilitators using the communities of inquiry framework to support online community
engagement. In the next section, these ideas are explored.

47

Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
This study was focused on determining how the community of inquiry model
facilitated online collaborative community engagement and if there were specific factors
that inhibited the development of the community of inquiry model. The findings and
discussion section detailed how the community of inquiry model supported the
community engagement in this study through the development of the elements of the
model. When examining this development, it was clear that in a community engagement
setting, the facilitation presence differed from teaching presence. It was also apparent that
although cognitive processes were developing, analysis and integration were not
completed. Some potential inhibitions to the development of the community of inquiry
that were examined include participant motivation, lack of engagement between
participants, response timing in asynchronous discussion, and limited time available for
the study.
In this section, I explore how the findings from this study can be applied to
community engagement. These findings suggest that the community of inquiry model
may require some adaptation when applied in a community engagement setting and that
there are some recommendations for promising practice when facilitating online
collaborative community engagement to mitigate factors that might inhibit the
community of inquiry from forming. This section reviews the findings as they relate to
the community of inquiry model being applied during online community engagement and
presents recommended modifications to the model. Specifically, it addresses the
differences observed between teaching presence in an educational setting and facilitator
presence in a community engagement setting. Following this, some recommendations for
the practice of online collaborative community engagement are discussed that further
develop the study findings. Finally, the limitations of the study are explored and future
work that could build on this study is suggested.
Reviewing Findings in Relation to the Model
The community of inquiry model was created specifically to support online,
constructivist learning (Garrison et al., 2000). Although the model’s theoretical
foundations and definition align well with community engagement as described in the
literature review, the main goal of education is for students to acquire new knowledge,
48

skills, or attitudes (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018) and the main goal of collaborative
community engagement is “to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision
including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution”
(International Association for Public Participation, 2018, p. 1). Basically, education is
focused on developing the students through experiences and engagement such as
interactive lectures, discussions, and assignments such as projects or essays, but the
product that they produce is often not used after the course as its purpose is to support
learning and assessment (Boud & Soler, 2016; Xin & Feenberg, 2006). In community
engagement, it is the discussion and resolutions that are captured that are of primary
importance, rather than any changes that occur in participants’ knowledge, skills, or
attitudes as a result. Although learning occurs in a community engagement setting
through the collaboration of community members, this is not the same as the formal
course-based online learning for which the community of inquiry framework was
developed. The learning that occurs during collaborative community engagement is
beneficial and important to community engagement processes as it is often due to an
increased understanding of the issue, new ideas that emerge, or increased empathy for
stakeholders with other perspectives; however, it is not the primary goal of the process
(International Association for Public Participation, 2018; Konsti-Laakso & Rantala,
2018). The difference can also be described by relating learning to acquisition and
community engagement to participation (Goodyear et al., 2014). This difference in goals
leads to different actions and focus by the facilitator and is the underlying reason behind
observations within this study that the community of inquiry model may require
modification when applied in a community engagement setting.
Certain changes in terminology were enacted within the coding framework prior to the
study, as shown in Appendices 1 and 2, to reflect a facilitator presence rather than a
teaching presence and participants rather than students. During coding and analysis, these
terminology changes were found to be appropriate; however, some additional changes to
the facilitator presence element within the model were deemed advisable when applying
it in a community engagement setting. These recommended changes are discussed next.
Facilitator Presence: Modelling Social Presence
As an outsider to the community, facilitator membership within the community is
49

conditionally and provisionally extended by members based on their perceptions of the
facilitator’s behavior (Hovmand, 2014). Therefore, unlike a course where the teacher has
institutionally granted authority and membership to the class which students accept when
they enroll, a facilitator in a community engagement setting does not hold the same
power and membership privileges. This is because the “community” is not defined as the
participants in the online experience, but more broadly based on the issue. This difference
“requires a certain amount of self-awareness of one’s own status and privilege, sensitivity
to cultural diversity and how power and privilege operate within a community, and
paying attention to distinctions that community members might draw between a
definition of community imposed upon them and one that they can extend” (Hovmand,
2014, p. 8). For this reason, it is advisable for the facilitator to avoid showing preference
or bias when discussing opinions or issues as indicating preference or bias may lead some
community members to question the facilitator’s inclusion in the group or stop engaging
with the facilitator. During the study, in an instance where participants’ perspectives
differed, the facilitator expressed agreement with one of them with the intention of
encouraging; however, as shown in Table 9, following this exchange, the participants did
not respond further to this discussion thread.

50

Table 9
Excerpt from group 1 discussion
Participant 5: …There is a tendency for institutions attention to gravitate toward the capital
purchase of equipment and not spend enough attention on a sustainable plan for staffing and
programs…
Facilitator: …Great perspective Participant 5!...
Participant 4: I can't agree more with @participant5 about mass purchase of the equipment
and material for the makers lab, however I would suggest to provide guidelines brochures for
each equipment that users can figure it out independently, also just as a suggestion, whenever
the makers space has enough supply why not give schools an opportunity to borrow the
material for specific class experiments…
Facilitator: @participant4 What great ideas! I think it would be great if schools could also
borrow the materials for class experiments. Do you think this should be done with a TRU
maker or independently? Right now the makerspace has single items (i.e. three types of
robots, but only one of each). Would use in an educational setting necessitate the purchase of
class sets do you think? @participant5 Right now the makerspace has only one of each type
of machine. What are your thoughts on purchasing multiples to allow more than one student
to work on a machine at once or to allow the machines to be used in a classroom setting?
*No further responses to this discussion thread by these participants.
Note: Participant usernames and names have been replaced within the excerpt with their
participant numbers.

Although the issues discussed within this community engagement were not
emotionally tied or highly controversial, by engaging in interactive statements that
expressed agreement and affective statements that disclosed the facilitator’s opinion and
perspective, the facilitator’s neutrality may have been compromised in the eyes of
participants. Operating from a neutral position also implies that the way the facilitator
engages in social processes will be different from the way participants engage in them.
However, it is still important for the facilitator to use social processes to develop positive
rapport with the participants and to model social processes so that participants will also
51

use them as these processes promote positive interaction amongst the participants. As it is
still recommended that the facilitator use social processes, but approach them slightly
differently, it is recommended that a “Modelling Social Presence” category be added to
the facilitator presence to highlight the importance of modelling processes as well as to
allow the difference in how the facilitator engages in social processes.
Facilitator Presence: Facilitating Discourse and Directions & Instructions
As discussed above, it is important for the facilitator to act as a neutral party and the
goal of collaborative community engagement is not to educate participants (Hovmand,
2014; International Association for Public Participation, 2018). Therefore, it is
recommended that indicators related to instruction found within the facilitating discourse
and directions and instructions categories are removed or replaced with modified
indicators more specific to community engagement. Although indicators within the
model are only provided as examples rather than prescriptive components, it is important
that these examples align with the facilitator’s role in online community engagement and
are sufficiently detailed as to support this role. Recommended changes to indicators
related to instruction and found in the categories facilitating discourse and directions and
instructions are detailed in Table 10. The remainder of this section will discuss the
reasoning behind each recommended change.

52

Table 10
Recommended modifications to indicators in the facilitating discourse and directions and
instructions categories of the community of inquiry framework
Indicator: Definition
Present content: Facilitator
presents materials and asks
questions related to material.

Change
Modify to
focus on
foundational,
neutral facts.

Asking questions: Facilitator
asks questions on the material

Split into two
more specific
indicators.

Confirm understanding
through explanatory feedback
Diagnose misconceptions
Inject knowledge from
diverse sources
Assessing the efficacy of the
process
Drawing in participants,
prompting discussion:
Facilitator calls on
participants to participate and
includes everyone in the
discussion

Remove

New Indicatory: Definition
Present the issue & related research
or facts: Facilitator presents the
issue in a neutral way, providing
basic facts or research to provide
participants with common
foundational knowledge.
Ask questions to prompt additional
discussion: Facilitator asks
questions of participant to stimulate
higher level discussion, deeper
reflection, or consideration of
alternate perspectives.
Ask questions to clarify a
participant’s perspective:
Facilitator asks questions to clarify
a participant’s perspective that
might be misinterpreted by other
participants or is unclear.

Remove
Remove
Remove
Add
“redirecting
questions”
with
definition.

Drawing in participants, prompting
discussion, redirecting questions:
Facilitator calls on participants to
participate and includes everyone in
the discussion, redirecting nontechnical or process related
questions to other participants
rather than answering.

“Present content” changed to “Present the issue & related research or facts” and
remove “Inject knowledge from diverse sources”. Although it may be relevant for the
facilitator to share certain basic facts relating to community issues, it is important that the
53

information shared is presented in a neutral way. For this reason, the facilitator should
closely examine external resources for bias. It may not be advisable to share resources
prepared by other parties if they contain biased perspectives. Instead, it may be more
beneficial for the facilitator to prepare a single fact-based reference using diverse
resources that shows basic facts surrounding the issue. The goal of this resource is not to
educate participants, but to provide a common knowledge foundation that participants
can build discussion on (Xin & Feenberg, 2006). Creating this resource can be
challenging and requires a good understanding of community perspectives so that the
resource does not appear biased.
“Ask questions” split into two specific indicators. Although in a course, the teacher
will ask questions to encourage deeper thinking related to learning objectives, in
community engagement, the facilitator uses questions to prompt additional discussion or
to clarify a participant’s perspective. Prompting additional discussion is not aimed at
eliciting specific responses, just more elaboration or deeper thinking by participants.
These types of questions were used by the facilitator during the study as shown in
Table 11.
Table 11
Examples of asking questions
Example of asking questions to prompt additional discussion:
Facilitator: … Keeping that in mind, what do you think would be the best way to train new
users? Right now the Makerspace is doing one-on-one training by makerspace staff when
someone comes into the space. Is this the best way to continue do you think or would it be
better to run scheduled workshops or lessons for beginners? Or, should new users take some
sort of training online to introduce them to safety and basic use for a specific machine prior to
coming in? What do you think?
Example of asking questions to clarify a participant’s perspective:
Facilitator: …When you talk about 3D modelling projects, do you mean modelling for use in
virtual reality (i.e. designing VR environments), modelling things to print using the 3D printer
or modelling to print and construct using the circuit machine (i.e. like cardboard 3D puzzles)?
All of these sound really awesome to me, but I was just wondering what your specific interest
was?...
54

“Confirm understanding through explanatory feedback” and “Diagnose
misconceptions” removed. An important difference between community engagement
and teaching is that in community engagement, there are no incorrect responses, and the
facilitator is not focused on having students learn specific information or processes.
Because of this, confirm understanding through explanatory feedback and diagnose
misconceptions were removed as they both focus on informing students of correct
responses instead of listening to the perspectives of participants.
Remove “Assessing the efficacy of the process.” Although it is important for
participants to feel that their time is being well spent, it is also critical that participants
feel that their voices and perspectives are being heard, acknowledged, considered, and
when appropriate, incorporated into the final solution (Community Places, 2014;
Department of Infrastructure, 2017; Involve, 2005; Social Planning and Research Council
of British Columbia, 2013; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). Although it
may be necessary for the facilitator to ask questions to prompt additional discussion or
clarify perspectives or to focus the discussion on specific issues to bring out additional
perspectives or invite other participants into the discussion, deciding that the processes
currently in use are not effective might lead to participants involved in these processes
feeling as though their voices were being discounted. Within the study, there was one
instance where the efficacy of a discussion might be questioned. Substantial discussion
occurred with one participant around their personal projects. Although the facilitator tried
gently and unsuccessfully to refocus this discussion on the trigger topic (how the
makerspace could enable their goals rather than details about their personal projects), the
participant wanted to share information about their personal projects. As the participant
was encouraged by the facilitator to continue sharing, they disclosed a lot about their
motivation to use the space. Although not a topic that was being deeply explored by the
community engagement, the rich information provided a small window into the varied
motivation that makers can have. If the facilitator had overtly questioned the efficacy of
the discussion, the participant may not have shared this information. For this reason,
facilitators may not wish to focus on efficacy as it might reduce the richness of personal
stories being provided.
Adding “redirecting questions.” During the study, some participants asked the
55

facilitator questions either to confirm if their ideas were acceptable or in some cases
redirecting trigger questions to the facilitator to try to elicit the facilitator’s opinion. As it
is important for the facilitator to remain neutral, these questions were redirected to either
another participant or the makerspace administrators. Additionally, the social dynamics
of the group can also significantly impact participant participation and interaction and in
some cases, participants may not feel comfortable responding to the questions of other
participants (Duff, 2019; Harden et al., 2015). Redirecting questions can provide
participants with a sense of agency as it shows that it is their voice that is important.
Highlighting the importance of redirecting questions is the reason that this was added to
one of the indicators.
Facilitator Presence: Design and Organization
Indicators within the community of inquiry model for design and organization include
setting curriculum and methods, indicators that apply to teaching rather than community
engagement. Additionally, this category is not included within Heckman and Annabi’s
(2005) coding framework as it is considered an antecedent variable. However, design
considerations are very important as elaborated in the recommendations for practice
section which follows. So, in modifying the model for practitioners in the community
engagement field to use it was felt that applicable indicators should be described. These
indicators reflect the researcher’s experience in designing and organizing the space for
the study as well as some of the observations elaborated on in the results and
recommendations for practice. For community engagement, it is important to design the
online space, including selecting technological platforms based on their affordances and
setting these up for participants. This is discussed further in recommendations for
practice. Instead of a curriculum, within community engagement, participants go through
an experience which includes some type of kick-off and trigger questions that occur over
a set time period with a specific group. Synchronous events can also occur. Although
some of these things can be altered by the facilitator as the engagement progresses,
having a well thought out initial plan is important. Finally, as stated above, providing
some neutral content that can act as a foundation for discussion is important and may
require the facilitator to create this content. Design and organization is an important part
of the facilitator’s role in community engagement, but is approached differently in a
56

community engagement setting than in an education setting.
Proposed Community of Inquiry Framework for Community Engagement
It is suggested that modifications to the community of inquiry framework, specifically
to the facilitator presence element, could improve the framework’s utility when applied in
a community engagement setting. As discussed, these modifications include the addition
of a modelling social presence category, modification of indicators in the facilitating
discourse and directions and instructions categories that are related to instruction, and
modification of indicators in the design and organization category to suit the community
engagement context. The proposed framework is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Community of inquiry model modified for community engagement

Note. Adapted with permission from The first decade of the community of inquiry
framework: A retrospective, by Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W., 2010,
Copyright 2010 by Internet and Higher Education and “A content analytic comparison of
learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions.” by R. Heckman and
H. Annabi, 2005, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), Appendix 1.

57

Recommendations for Practice
Based on the data analysis and observations from this study, recommendations for
practice have been generated. These recommendations reflect modifications proposed in
Figure 7, specifically, they concern the design and organization of the community of
inquiry and the facilitator’s approach (embodied in indicators in the facilitating discourse,
directions and instructions, and modelling social presence categories). This section
discusses these recommendations along with related literature.
Design and Organization
Recommendations for facilitators in terms of design and organization include
considerations when choosing the technological platforms, reflection on inclusion of
synchronous events, inclusion of deadlines, and consideration of the length of the
engagement.
Choice of Technology. As discussed previously, design and organization of the
community engagement space is an important job of the facilitator. The affordances and
design of an online space shapes the way users interact with it and with each other which
impacts the development of cognitive and social presence as well as the facilitator
presence (Chen & Poquet, 2020; Heckman & Annabi, 2005). So, identifying what
affordances are important and then using this to select the appropriate platform and
determine how it will be used during the community engagement is an important part of
design (Afzalan et al., 2017).
Within this study, two open-source platforms were selected and available for the
facilitator to use, Mattermost, a chat tool, and Etherpad, a text-based wiki tool. The chat
tool afforded text, images, or video posts to be shared in discussion threads. The textbased wiki tool afforded a single text-based model to develop and change over time.
Although a wiki tool was available to the facilitator in this study, it was not used as
eliciting participation in the discussion forum space was challenging and the facilitator
suspected that adding an additional tool for participants to post in would not increase or
enhance participation in the limited time available for the study. However, after
examining the data from the study, it was apparent that participants did not analyze or
integrate ideas, an important part of collaborative community engagement. As a chat tool,
the discussion forum style communication in Mattermost did not easily afford an
58

integrated portrayal of developing ideas. Although participants may not have engaged
with the wiki, literature suggests having a single model showing all of the participant’s
ideas and perspectives can help to structure and focus engagement and encourage
analytical discussions leading to consensus (Hovmand, 2014; Konsti-Laakso & Rantala,
2018; Vaughan, 2008). Konsti-Laakso and Rantala (2018) discuss that such a model can
be constructed by participants or by the facilitator based on participant response. So, in
this short study in which participants’ engagement is low, it may have been helpful for
the facilitator to create and keep a central model or graphical representation up to date to
reflect participant input. Some examples of these types of models include text-based
wikis, causal loop diagrams, or stock and flow diagrams (Hovmand, 2014; Konsti-Laakso
& Rantala, 2018; Vaughan, 2008). There are numerous methods that can be used to
facilitate cocreation of models by participants including problem structuring methods and
community-based system dynamics (Hovmand, 2014; Konsti-Laakso & Rantala, 2018).
Due to the flexibility of the community of inquiry framework, these methods could be
used within it. So, it is recommended that in designing collaborative community
engagement, technology is selected that affords discussion as well as development of
collective portrayals of participant ideas and perspectives.
Another factor which facilitators may wish to consider when selecting platforms is the
use of open technology. Not only is this technology cost effective, but the principles that
support the development and provision of open source code are the same foundational
social justice principles that support community engagement practices (International
Association for Public Participation, 2017; Sullivan, 2011). By using open source
technology, the community engagement effort is supporting “cultural, political, and
economic egalitarianism” (Sullivan, 2011, p. 232) which is often the foundation of
collaborative community engagement, to give community members equal voice and
influence on issues.
Synchronous Events. As discussed in the results, participants’ interaction with each
other was minimal and most discussions occurred between the facilitator and individual
participants even when the facilitator attempted to draw other participants into the
discussion. Although the goal of this research was to support asynchronous online
collaboration, literature suggests that group performance, individual motivation, and
59

collaboration is improved when group members have the opportunity to meet
synchronously or face-to-face (Michinov & Michinov, 2008; Vaughan et al., 2013).
Group identity and social processes can also be strengthened by synchronous dialogue
(Michinov et al., 2004). A synchronous event could occur via group video chat or text
chat and could involve the whole group or small sub-groups (Goodyear et al., 2014;
Michinov et al., 2004). Michinov and Michinov (2008) studied online collaborative tasks
and suggested that midway through a course or group project may be the best time to
have a synchronous or face-to-face event rather than as a kick-off event. However,
although their study showed that this can positively affect participation and social
interaction, it did not compare groups with differently timed synchronous events
(Michinov & Michinov, 2008). Therefore, in designing the participant experience,
facilitators may wish to consider synchronous events for time periods they feel will
benefit from an increased participation and social presence.
Timing and Scheduling. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, numerous posts occurred
within the last several days of the study. In group one, reminding participants that it was
the second last day of the study may have prompted one participant to login and post two
lengthy replies to questions from the facilitator. In group two, two participants logged in
and posted replies to all the questions directed at them following a reminder that it was
the last day of the study. This behavior is consistent with literature in behavioral
economics that shows deadlines can promote action, especially when the deadline is
aligned with general goals of the participant (Jiang & Albarracín, 2019). For this reason,
it may be advisable to communicate deadlines to participants, for example, stating that
topic 1 will be the focus of the group’s discussion until a specific date when the focus
will shift to a second topic. This type of communication was not employed within the
study but may have been helpful in providing smaller deadlines (aside from the end of the
study).
Length of the Community Engagement. Although many considerations will impact
the length of time allocated to complete the community engagement such as deadlines
related to the issue, available funding, etc., it is important when planning asynchronous
collaborative events to remember that substantially more time must be allocated to allow
for responsive dialogue to occur. Although during planning, two weeks seemed like a
60

substantial time period, as three topics were being covered, I felt that more time would
have been beneficial to the development of collaborative processes.
Facilitator’s Approach: Facilitating Discourse, Directions & Instructions, and
Modelling Social Presence
During community engagement, the facilitator must make choices relating to how they
engage in facilitating discourse, providing directions and instruction, and modelling
social presence. This engagement will vary for many reasons. One important issue is the
level of motivation of participants. Another issue is the goal of the community of inquiry
and the completion of the inquiry cycle.
Motivation of Participants. Although in this study participant motivation appeared to
be relatively low based on engagement, participant motivation in community engagement
will vary depending on the issue and approach (Community Places, 2014). For example,
Engeström (2009) presents the concept of “wildfire activities” which are communities or
discussion groups that crop up repeatedly and revolve around an activity that sustains
deep interest of participants. Examples are birding and skateboarding. In these groups
where participants have a deep personal interest, there is no need for any external
motivation and participants devote extensive time to the discussion group because of their
personal interest. DeLuca (2018) discussed the same phenomenon in fandom
communities where for no external reward, participants contribute their own writing and
debate topics. Again, personal passion provides intrinsic motivation and leads to high
time expenditure. Both fandom communities and wildfire activities can take place in
“affinity spaces” which Gee (2005) has discussed in terms of certain characteristics
including a common endeavour, no segregation based on skill or seniority, the ability for
contributors to influence the endeavour they participate in, and encouraging collaborative
knowledge building. This idea is extended by Green (2020) who talks about “affinity
groups” in schools. When students identify themselves as belonging to a group, and when
they are permitted to get together in that group to talk about their shared identity and
interest, it is then that their discussion can develop into action. In wildfire activities,
fandom communities, affinity groups, and affinity spaces, participants build on the work
and ideas of others, exploring various topics with little facilitation or direction (DeLuca,
2018; Engeström, 2009; Gee, 2005; Green, 2020). A facilitator’s approach to these
61

situations where participants are highly passionate may be more focused on mediation or
prompting integration of ideas rather than prompting engagement as is the case when
motivation is low. Therefore, facilitators may wish to study participant behavior and vary
their approach based on their engagement. Although motivation to participate can be high
when participants are passionate and such communities may require little facilitation to
promote discourse, more facilitation may be necessary to promote the completion of the
inquiry cycle and support collaborative community engagement.
Completion of the Inquiry Cycle. Participants within this study did not complete the
inquiry cycle. Although this may be due to several reasons, literature was reviewed to
determine recommended practices to help guide participants through the inquiry process.
Xin and Feenberg (2006) describe the inquiry cycle as one in which “communication
deepens through a series of attempts to explain, verify, repair, and confirm the subject of
discussion” (p. 12) as shown in Figure 8. They suggest that the cycle should end by
sharing a representation or artifact showing the new knowledge produced, further
supporting the production of a central model or graphical representation as discussed
(Xin & Feenberg, 2006). Xin and Feenberg (2006) and Vaughan et al. (2013) discuss that
presenting an agenda showing clear expectations of how participants will engage in the
inquiry process as well as the expected outcome of the process early in the experience is
important. They recommend that participants “should be formally introduced to the
inquiry process and be expected to monitor their contributions and activities” (Vaughan
et al., 2013, p. 34). Although this approach may put too much responsibility on the
participants for a community engagement effort, providing a general statement of the
participant’s expected actions during each stage of the inquiry cycle as it relates to the
topic may help participants prepare for analysis and integration.

62

Figure 8
The inquiry cycle shown as a discourse model

Note. Reprinted from “Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discourse’ by C.
Xin and A. Feenberg, 2006, Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 13. Open access
journal, no permission required for reprinting.

Limitations of the Study
Although this study provided insight into how the community of inquiry can enable
online collaborative community engagement, there were some limitations to the study. As
it was important for us to directly examine discourse, we chose not to capture participant
reflections through surveys such as the validated survey associated with the community
of inquiry. As surveys were not used, some of the interpretations of the data are
speculative such as discussions related to participant motivation. In addition, although
this was a good community engagement opportunity, the pilot makerspace program was
closed due to COVID-19 when recruitment efforts occurred and there was some difficulty
recruiting participants which may indicate that participants were not eager for the
opportunity to discuss these issues as is the case with community engagement initiatives
where participants have strong opinions or where participants feel the outcome of the
engagement will have a powerful affect on their lives. In addition to these limitations, the
study was limited in time to two weeks to encourage participation and to ensure the study
could be completed within the funding window the researcher had. The study also did not
63

provide comparison to in-person community engagement or synchronous community
engagement due to COVID-19 and the difficulty recruiting sufficient participants.
Future Work
This study has demonstrated how the community of inquiry can support online
collaborative community engagement, but it has also identified some impediments to the
establishment of the community of inquiry. Through the study, a modified framework as
well as recommendations for practice have been developed. The next step would be to
test this framework. It would be useful to apply the modified community of inquiry
framework and recommendations for practice in a longer study where community
members are more emotionally invested in the issues being discussed to determine if in
this situation participants complete the inquiry cycle. In a longer study, it would also be
valuable to have some feedback from participants relating to their experience in the
community of inquiry and their personal motivation, for example through surveys such as
the community of inquiry survey validated by Arbaugh et al. (2008).

64

Chapter 6: Conclusion
Through the study of two groups of participants engaged in a two-week discussion
forum about the university makerspace designed using the community of inquiry
framework, how the community of inquiry facilitated collaborative community
engagement in this online, asynchronous space and the impediments to the establishment
of the community of inquiry model were explored. Overall, the community of inquiry
model supported community engagement as the facilitator and design aided the
development of social and cognitive presences. Although cognitive presence did develop,
participants did not engage in analysis or integration and thus community engagement
was limited to the “involve” or “consult” level rather than the targeted “collaboration”
level. It was also observed that facilitation in a community engagement setting differed
significantly from teaching. Some factors within the study may have inhibited the
development of the community of inquiry framework, specifically the completion of
inquiry cycle. Potential inhibiting factors included participant motivation, lack of
engagement between participants, response timing in asynchronous discussion, and the
overall time available to complete the study. In response to the results and observations, a
modified community of inquiry model was proposed for use in a community engagement
setting. The modified model included terminology specific to the community engagement
setting and changing the teaching presence to a facilitation presence to reflect the
difference in the goals of education and the goals of community engagement.
Additionally, promising practices were suggested for applying the community of inquiry
framework in a community engagement setting that might better support completion of
the community inquiry cycle. These included recommendations relating to choosing
appropriate software, reflection on inclusion of synchronous events, inclusion of
deadlines, consideration of the length of the engagement, and how a facilitator’s approach
might vary based on perceived participant motivation.

65

References
Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T. W., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating smarter cities:
Considerations for selecting online participatory tools. Cities, 67, 21–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.002
Ahmed, S. M., & Palermo, A. G. S. (2010). Community engagement in research:
frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health,
100(8), 1380–1387. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.178137
Alomyan, H., & Green, D. (2019). Learning theories: implications for online learning
design. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 126–130.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3355966.3358412
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.
Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Network, 4(2), 53–72.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v4i2.1901
Barnes, M., & Schmitz, P. (2016). Community engagement matters (now more than
ever). Stanford Social Innovation Review: Informing and Inspiring Leaders of Social
Change.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/community_engagement_matters_now_more_than_eve
r
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods, and practices.
Scholar Commons, University of South Florida.
https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3/?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.
edu%2Foa_textbooks%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133
Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2016). Students’ perceptions of teaching and social presence: A
comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. Blended
Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 4(1), 1533–1550.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0783-3.ch073
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public
participation processes: theory to practice. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–
34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x

66

Butler, D. L., Schnellert, L., & MacNeil, K. (2014). Collaborative inquiry and distributed
agency in educational change: A case study of a multi-level community of inquiry.
Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-0149227-z
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (2015). CAMH community engagement
framework. In Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization
Collaborating Centre. https://camh.ca//media/files/camhcommunityengagementframework-pdf.pdf
Chanprasitchai, O. A., & Khlaisang, J. (2016). Inquiry-based learning for a virtual
learning community to enhance problem-solving ability of applied Thai traditional
medicine students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(4), 77–
87.
Chen, B., & Poquet, O. (2020). Socio-temporal dynamics in peer interaction events.
International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ’20), 203–
208. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375535
Cleveland-Innes, M. (2020). The community of inquiry theoretical framework: designing
collaborative online and blended learning. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.),
Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Principles and Practices of Design (3rd ed.,
pp. 85–102). Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq062
Cohen, A., & Holstein, S. (2018). Analysing successful massive open online courses
using the community of inquiry model as perceived by students. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12259
Community Places. (2014). Community planning toolkit: community engagement.
https://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/community-engagement
Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248–291.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330502
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative
research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist,
35(2), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
DeLuca, K. (2018). Shared passions, shared compositions: Online fandom communities
and affinity groups as sites for public writing pedagogy. Computers and
Composition, 47, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.12.003
Department of Infrastructure. (2017). Community engagement toolkit for planning.
https://collectiveimpactforum.org/sites/default/files/Community Engagement
67

Toolkit.pdf
Duff, P. A. (2019). Social dimensions and processes in second language acquisition:
Multilingual socialization in transnational contexts. Modern Language Journal, 103,
6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12534
Dunlap, J. C., Bose, D., Lowenthal, P. R., York, C. S., Atkinson, M., & Murtagh, J.
(2016). What sunshine is to flowers: a literature review on the use of emoticons to
support online learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. Gartmeier (Eds.), Emotions,
Technology, Design, and Learning (pp. 163–182). Elsevier Inc.
Dunlap, J. C., Verma, G., & Johnson, H. L. (2016). Presence+experience: a framework
for the purposeful design of presence in online courses. TechTrends, 60, 145–151.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0029-4
Engeström, Y. (2009). Wildfire activities: New patterns of mobility and learning.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(2), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2009040101
Faulconer, E. K., Griffith, J., Wood, B., Acharyya, S., & Roberts, D. (2018). A
comparison of online, video synchronous, and traditional learning modes for an
introductory undergraduate physics course. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 27(5), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9732-6
Forest, C. R., Moore, R. A., Jariwala, A. S., Fasse, B. B., Linsey, J., Newstetter, W., Ngo,
P., & Quintero, C. (2014). The invention studio: A university maker space and
culture. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(2), 1–32.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Encyclopedia of
Distance Learning (pp. 352–355). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a Community of Inquiry.
Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework: in
the context of online and blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
Distance Education (pp. 104–119). Routledge.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284306348_The_Community_of_Inquiry_
Theoretical_Framework
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community
of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
68

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry
framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education,
10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology
to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of
practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge University
Press.
Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: Instructional approaches, group processes and educational desgns. In J. M.
Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., pp. 439–451). Springer
Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
Green, K. (2020). Affinity groups as equitable student engagement. English Journal, 13–
15.
Gutek, G. L. (2015). Philosophy and history of education. Pearson.
Harden, A., Sheridan, K., McKeown, A., Dan-Ogosi, I., Bagnall, A.-M., Angela Harden,
P., Bagnall, M., South, J., Trigwell, J., & Kinsella, K. (2015). Review 5: evidence
review of barriers to, and facilitators of, community engagement approaches and
practices in the UK. http://www.uel.ac.uk/ihhd/
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2003). A content analytic comparison of FTF and ALN
case-study discussions. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173631
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes
in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00244.x
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2006). How the teacher’s role changes in on-line case study
discussions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 141–150.
Heilporn, G., & Lakhal, S. (2020). Investigating the reliability and validity of the
community of inquiry framework: An analysis of categories within each presence.
Computers & Education, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103712
Hill, S. E. K. (2013). Team leadership. In P. Northouse (Ed.), Leadership: theory and
practice (6th ed., pp. 287–318). SAGE.
Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Community based system dynamics. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8763-0
Huang, K., Law, V., & Lee, S. J. (2018). The role of learners’ epistemic beliefs in an
online Community of Inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4),
69

1882–1895. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12684
Hynes, M. M., & Hynes, W. J. (2018). If you build it, will they come? Student
preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 867–883.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9412-5
International Association for Public Participation. (2017). Code Of Ethics.
https://www.iap2.org/page/ethics
International Association for Public Participation. (2018). IAP2’s Spectrum of Public
Participation.
https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars%0Ahttps://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resourc
e/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf
Involve. (2005). People & participation: how to put citizens at the heart of decisionmaking. Beacon Press.
http://www.sharedpractice.org.uk/Downloads/involve_publication.pdf
Jiang, D., & Albarracín, D. (2019). Acting by a deadline: The interplay between deadline
distance and movement induced goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103852
Kersting, N. (2013). Online participation: from “invited” to “invented” spaces.
International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(4), 270–280.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2013.060650
Kineshanko, M. (2016). A thematic synthesis of community inquiry research 2000 to
2014 [Athabasca University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10791/190
Konsti-Laakso, S., & Rantala, T. (2018). Managing community engagement: A process
model for urban planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 268, 1040–
1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.12.002
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part
4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1),
120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Kozan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). On the N th presence for the Community of Inquiry
framework. Computers and Education, 122, 104–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.010
Love, B. T. S., Roy, K. R., & Marino, M. T. (2020). Inclusive makerspaces, fab labs, and
STEM labs. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 79(5), 1–12.
Mattermost. (2020). Mattermost Overview.
https://docs.mattermost.com/overview/index.htmluser.html
70

McCue, R. A., Huculak, J. M., & Johnson, D. K. (2019). Best practices for creating and
leading active-learning workshops in academic makerspaces. International
Symposium of Academic Makerspaces.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336881787_Best_Practices_for_Creating_
and_Leading_Active-Learning_Workshops_in_Academic_Makerspaces
McGrath, O. G. (2016). Making a makerspace: Designing user services to serve
designing users. Association for Computer Machinery Conference, 95–98.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2974927.2974949
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of
evidence-based practices in online learning. Structure, 66.
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online
collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and
behavior over time. Computers and Education, 50, 1540–1557.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.002
Michinov, N., Michinov, E., & Toczek-Capelle, M. C. (2004). Social identity, group
processes, and performance in synchronous computer-mediated communication.
Group Dynamics, 8(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.8.1.27
Mills, J., Yates, K., Harrison, H., Woods, C., Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Trueman, S., &
Hitchins, M. (2016). Using a community of inquiry framework to teach a nursing
and midwifery research subject: An evaluative study. Nurse Education Today, 43,
34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.016
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Noel, A., Murphy, L., & Jariwala, A. S. (2016). Sustaining a diverse and inclusive culture
in a student run makerspace. International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces,
14–18.
Nolan-Grant, C. R. (2019). The Community of Inquiry framework as learning design
model: a case study in postgraduate online education. Research in Learning
Technology, 27, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2240
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: foundations, principles, and issues
(7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Otieno, C. (2020). Teaching in a Makerspace. In J. A. Delello & R. R. McWhorter (Eds.),
Disruptive and Emerging Technology Trends Across Education and the Workplace
(pp. 26–51). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2914-0.ch002
Ramaley, J. (2016). Collaboration in an era of change: new forms of community
problem-solving. Metropolitan Universities, 27(1), 10–24.
71

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social
presence in asynchronous text-based computer. Journal of Distance Education, 14,
51–70.
Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706–720.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x
Schmitz, P. (2017). Community engagement toolkit. Collective Impact Forum.
https://www.collectiveimpactforum.org/resources/community-engagement-toolkit
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson
Education.
Sherry, M. B. (2014). Indirect challenges and provocative paraphrases: Using cultural
conflict-talk practices to promote students’ dialogic participation in whole-class
discussions. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 141–167.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398672
Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia. (2013). Community
engagement toolkit. https://collectiveimpactforum.org/sites/default/files/Community
Engagement Toolkit.pdf
Spencer, T., Spencer, V., Patel, P., & Jariwala, A. (2016). Safety in a student-run
makerspace via peer-to-peer adaptive training. International Symposium of
Academic Makerspaces, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.21428/70cb44c5.c9986b05
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc.
Steele, K. M., Blaser, B., & Cakmak, M. (2018). Accessible making: Designing
makerspaces for accessibility. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 9(1),
114–121. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.22648
Sullivan, J. L. (2011). Free, open source software advocacy as a social justice movement:
The expansion of F/OSS movement discourse in the 21st century. Journal of
Information Technology and Politics, 8(3), 223–239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2011.592080
Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online education and its effective practice: A research
review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 157–190.
https://doi.org/10.28945/3502
Taylor, N., Hurley, U., & Connolly, P. (2016). Making community: The wider role of
makerspaces in public life. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1415–1425. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858073
The Etherpad Foundation. (n.d.). Etherpad. https://etherpad.org/
72

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Public participation guide.
https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide
Vaughan, N. D. (2008). The use of wikis and weblogs to support deep approaches to
learning. The University College of Fraser Valley Research Review2, 1(3), 47–60.
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended
learning environments: creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press,
Athabasca University. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838761
Vaughn, D. (2018). Evaluating Community Engagement Toolkit for Practical Use (2nd
ed.). Everyday Democracy. https://www.everydaydemocracy.org/resources/evaluating-community-engagement
Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online
discourse. Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2007.4.4.415
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam,
and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152.
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/yazan1.pdf

73

74
Appendix 1 – Data Coding Framework
Data coding framework showing first and second level categories with indicators and definitions adapted to fit a community
engagement context. Inductive coding shown in blue.
Category Level 1

Category Level 2

Indicators
Emotional expression (Garrison et al.;
Rourke et al.)
*Optional Subcategory: Emoji

Affective
Response (Rourke
Use of humor (Rourke et al.)
et al.)

Self-disclosure (Rouke et al.)
Social Process:
Thematic Unit

Vocatives (Rouke et al.)
*Subcategories:
 Actual first name
 @name
 own name

Cohesive
Response (Rourke Phatics, salutations (Rouke et al.)
et al.)
Addresses or refers to the group using
inclusive pronouns (Rouke et al.)
*Subcategories:
 @all
 “everyone” or “all”
Continuing a thread (Rouke et al.)
Interactive
Response (Rourke *Subcategories:
 reply feature
et al.)
 reply using @
Quoting from others' messages (Rouke et
al.)

Definition
Expression of emotion; includes
repetitious punctuation, conspicuous
capitalization, emoticons.
The use of teasing, cajoling, irony,
understatements, and sarcasm.
Presents details of their life or
expresses vulnerability.
Addressing or referring to
participants by name.
Communication that serves a purely
social function, greetings, closures.
Addresses the group as we, us, our,
group.

Uses reply features of software,
rather than starting a new thread.
Quotes others’ messages or
responses.

74

75
Category Level 1
Social Process:
Thematic Unit

Category Level 2
Interactive
Response (Rourke
et al.)

Indicators
Referring explicitly to others' messages
(Rouke et al.)
Complimenting, expressing appreciation
(Rouke et al.)
Expressing agreement (Rouke et al.)
Asking questions (Rouke et al.)
Rote factual response

Exploration
(Garrison et al.)

Triggering event (Garrison et al.)
Information exchange (Garrison et al.)

Cognitive
Process:
Thematic Unit

Analysis
Analysis

Simple clarification (Aviv)
Deep clarification (Aviv)
Connecting ideas (Garrison et al.)

Integration
(Garrison, et al.)

Inference (Aviv)
Judgment (Aviv)
Resolution (Garrison et al.)

Definition
Direct references to contents of
others' posts.
Complimenting others or content of
others' messages.
Expressing agreement with others or
content of others' messages.
Participants ask questions of other
participants or the facilitator.
States basic information from
material or adds to previous
comment.
Start of the discussion or topic,
sense of puzzlement, transition, and
initiation into new line of thought.
Basic information and
brainstorming. Presentation of new
ideas to group.
Presents argument or applies
framework to evaluate situation.
Identifies previously stated ideas
and reformulates the issue.
Identifies hidden assumptions and
needed information
Use of metaphors, analogies, and
explicit similes and relationships.
Makes inferences linked to
previously proposed ideas.
Makes evaluation of others' ideas.
Applies new ideas, coming to
conclusions and recommendations.

75

76
Category Level 1

Category Level 2

Indicators
Discussion strategy (Aviv)
Present content (Anderson et al.)
Ask questions
Focus the discussion on specific issues
(Anderson et al.)

Facilitating
Process:
Thematic Unit

Summarize the discussion (Anderson et
al.)
Directions and
Instructions
(Anderson et al.)

Confirm understanding through
explanatory feedback (Anderson et al.)

Diagnose misconceptions (Anderson et
al.)

Inject knowledge from diverse sources
(Anderson et al.)
Responding to technical concerns
(Anderson et al.)

Definition
Explicit discussion of what the
participants and the facilitator do to
proceed. Procedural rather than
substantive.
Facilitator presents materials and
asks questions related to material.
Facilitator asks questions on the
material.
Participant or facilitator focuses
discussion by directing attention to
particular concepts or information.
Participant or facilitator summarizes
the discussion to develop and
explicitly delineate the context.
Participant or facilitator analyzes
participants' comments and provides
explanatory feedback to confirm
understanding.
Participant or facilitator provides
clarification and corrects
participants' misconceptions.
Participant or facilitator provides
knowledge from difference sources
(e.g., product manuals, articles,
internet) and provides pointers to
the sources.
Facilitator or participant responds to
technical questions.

76

77
Category Level 1

Category Level 2

Indicators
Identifying areas of
agreement/disagreement (Anderson et al.)

Facilitating
Process:
Thematic Unit

Seeking to reach consensus/understanding
(Anderson et al.)
Facilitating
Discourse
(Anderson et al.)

Encouraging, acknowledging, or
reinforcing participant contributions
(Anderson et al.)
Assessing the efficacy of the process
(Anderson et al.)
Setting climate for collaboration
(Anderson et al.)
Drawing in participants, prompting
discussion (Anderson et al.)

Modelling Social
Processes

Affective Response
Cohesive Response
Interactive Response
Non-responsive (Aviv)

Discourse
Process:
Message/
Utterance Unit

Response to facilitator (Aviv)
Target/Speaker

Response to participant (Aviv)
Response to participant by facilitator
Participant

Definition
Facilitator or participant identifies
areas of contradictions and
agreements.
Participant and facilitator articulate
consensus and shared
understanding.
Facilitator acknowledges and
encourages participants and their
contributions.
Facilitator moves the conversation
along and ensures effective and
efficient use of time.
Facilitator creates an environment
that is not threatening and
encourages sharing of ideas.
Facilitator calls on participants to
participate and includes everyone in
the discussion.
*Subcategories and definitions
mirror those of the social process
category
Statements that do not include a
response (but are relevant).
Response to message/comment
made by facilitator.
Response to message/comment
made by another participant.
Response to message/comment
made by participant by the
facilitator.
Utterance by participant.
77

78
Category Level 1
Discourse
Process:
Message/
Utterance Unit

Category Level 2
Target/Speaker

Discourse
Characteristics

Indicators
Facilitator
Informal
Passive voice (sentence)

Definition
Utterance by facilitator.
Slang vocabulary, sentence
fragments, insecure feelings or
thoughts as opposed to complete
sentences, complete thoughts
Action performed upon the speaker
or specified participant.

Note. Adaptions made prior to data analysis are shown in Appendix 2. Additions of inductive coding are shown in blue.
Adapted with permission from “A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study
discussions.” by R. Heckman and H. Annabi, 2005, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), Appendix 1.

78

79
Appendix 2 – Modifications to the Coding Framework
Modifications to the coding framework (Heckman & Annabi, 2005) to fit the community engagement context.
Category 1
Social
Process:
Thematic
Unit

Category 2
Affective
Response
Interactive
Response

Indicator: Definition
Self-disclosure: Presents
details of life outside of
class or expresses
vulnerability.
Asking questions: Students
ask questions of other
students or the moderator.

Change
delete “outside of class”
add “their”

New Indicatory: Definition
Self-disclosure: Presents
details of their life or
expresses vulnerability.

Students -> Participants,
Moderator -> Facilitator

Asking questions:
Participants ask questions of
other participants or the
facilitator.
Simple clarification: Identifies
previously stated ideas and
reformulates the issue.

Cognitive
Process:
Thematic
Unit

Analysis

Simple clarification:
Identifies previously stated
hypotheses and reformulates
the problem

Hypotheses -> Ideas,
Problem -> Issue

Teaching
Process:
Thematic
Unit
Facilitating
Process:
Thematic
Unit

N/A

N/A

Teaching Process ->
Facilitating Process

Direct
Instruction

N/A

Directions and
Instructions

Discussion strategy: Explicit
discussion of what the
students and the teacher do

Direct Instruction ->
Directions and
Instructions
Students -> Participants,
Teacher -> Facilitator

Discussion strategy: Explicit
discussion of what the
participants and the
79

80
Category 1

Category 2

Indicator: Definition
Change
to proceed. Procedural rather
than substantive.
Present content: Instructor
presents materials and asks
questions related to
material.
Ask questions: Instructor
asks questions on the
material.
Focus the discussion on
specific issues: Student or
instructor focuses discussion
by directing attention to
particular concepts or
information.
Summarize the discussion:
Student or instructor
summarizes the discussion
to develop and explicitly
delineate the context.
Confirm understanding
through assessment and
explanatory feedback:
Student or instructor
assesses students' comments
and provides explanatory
feedback to confirm
understanding.
Diagnose misconceptions:
Student or instructor
provides clarification and

Instructor -> Facilitator

Instructor -> Facilitator

New Indicatory: Definition
facilitator do to proceed.
Procedural rather than
substantive.
Present content: Facilitator
presents materials and asks
questions related to material.
Ask questions: Facilitator
asks questions on the material.

Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator

Focus the discussion on
specific issues: Participant or
facilitator focuses discussion
by directing attention to
particular concepts or
information.
Student -> Participant,
Summarize the discussion:
Instructor -> Facilitator
Participant or facilitator
summarizes the discussion to
develop and explicitly
delineate the context.
Delete “assessment and”, Confirm understanding
Student(s) ->
through explanatory feedback:
Participant(s),
Participant or facilitator
Instructor -> Facilitator, analyzes participants'
Assesses -> Analyzes
comments and provides
explanatory feedback to
confirm understanding.
Student(s) ->
Participant(s),
Instructor -> Facilitator

Diagnose misconceptions:
Participant or facilitator
provides clarification and
80

81
Category 1

Category 2

Facilitating
Discourse

Indicator: Definition
corrects students'
misconceptions.
Inject knowledge from
diverse sources: Student or
instructor provides
knowledge from difference
sources (e.g., textbooks,
articles, internet) and
provides pointers to the
sources.
Responding to technical
concerns: Instructor or
student responds to technical
questions.
Identifying areas of
agreement/ disagreement:
Instructor or student
identifies areas of
contradictions and
agreements.
Seeking to reach consensus/
understanding: Student or
instructor articulate
consensus and shared
understanding.
Encouraging,
acknowledging, or
reinforcing student
contributions: Instructor
acknowledges and
encourages students and
their contributions.

Change
Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator,
Textbooks -> Product
manuals

Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator
Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator

Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator

Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator

New Indicatory: Definition
corrects participants'
misconceptions.
Inject knowledge from diverse
sources: Participant or
facilitator provides
knowledge from difference
sources (e.g., product
manuals, articles, internet)
and provides pointers to the
sources.
Responding to technical
concerns: Facilitator or
participant responds to
technical questions.
Identifying areas of
agreement/ disagreement:
Facilitator or participant
identifies areas of
contradictions and
agreements.
Seeking to reach consensus/
understanding: Participant or
facilitator articulate
consensus and shared
understanding.
Encouraging, acknowledging,
or reinforcing participant
contributions: Facilitator
acknowledges and encourages
participant and their
contributions.

81

82
Category 1

Discourse
Process:
Message/
Utterance
Unit

Category 2

Target/Speaker

Indicator: Definition
Assessing the efficacy of
the process: Instructor
moves the conversation
along and ensures effective
and efficient use of time.
Setting the climate for
learning: Instructor creates
an environment that is not
threatening and encourages
sharing of ideas.
Drawing in participants,
prompting discussion:
Instructor calls on students
to participate and includes
everyone in the discussion.

Change
Instructor -> Facilitator

Response to tutor:
Response to
message/comment made by
instructor.
Response to learner:
Response to
message/comment made by
another student/learner.
Student: Utterance by
student.
Teacher: Utterance by
instructor.

Instructor -> Facilitator
Tutor -> Facilitator

Learning ->
Collaboration
Instructor -> Facilitator
Student -> Participant,
Instructor -> Facilitator

Student/Learner ->
Participant
Student -> Participant
Teacher -> Facilitator
Instructor -> Facilitator

New Indicatory: Definition
Assessing the efficacy of the
process: Facilitator moves
the conversation along and
ensures effective and
efficient use of time.
Setting the climate for
collaboration: Facilitator
creates an environment that
is not threatening and
encourages sharing of ideas.
Drawing in participants,
prompting discussion:
Facilitator calls on
participants to participate
and includes everyone in the
discussion.
Response to facilitator:
Response to
message/comment made by
facilitator.
Response to participant:
Response to
message/comment made by
another participant.
Participant: Utterance by
participant.
Facilitator: Utterance by
facilitator.

82

83
Appendix 3 – Recruitment E-mail
Good Day!
We are reaching out to you because you indicated that you were interested in helping
improve the Makerspace. We are running Makerspace Communities of Inquiry designed
to improve the makerspace and contribute to research aimed at reducing barriers in
community engagement. In addition to helping the university community and community
engagement organizations, you will also be entered into a draw to win a (__gift card
description__)!
To participate, you will be asked to sign up using the link below for an online session
(pick that dates that work for you!) During the session, you will be learning more about
the Makerspace, sharing ideas, listening to others and problem solving together. The
researchers will be looking at your activity (such as group discussions and interactions) in
the Makerspace community of inquiry to help us understand if the online environment
helped you to work together as a team. The group solutions that are created will also be
used to improve the Makerspace as well as contributing to research about the
Makerspace. The Makerspace community of inquiry will take under two hours of your
time (spread out over 2 weeks).
Please use this link to sign up for a session: (__link__)
Thank you in advance for participating! If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me at weaverL18@tru.ca or 819-209-3429.
I look forward to working with you!
Lorri Weaver
MEd Student
weaverL18@tru.ca
819-209-3429

83

84
Appendix 4 – Makerspace Community of Inquiry Design
Consistent with Heckman & Annabi (2005), online Communities of Inquiry will use facilitated discussion. Facilitated
discussion will be broken up into six 15-20 min time blocks. The online participants would login approximately 1 time every 2
days to contribute or more frequently for smaller amounts of time. Initial questions that will be posed are given below.
Examples of prompting questions and facilitation notes which may be used to encourage discussion are also given. Both
groups will be sent a welcome e-mail shown in Appendix 3 approximately 3-5 days before the start of the session which will
allow them to consider the first few questions.
Main Idea
Personal and
professional use
of the makerspace
(content and
technology) and
how the
makerspace can
enable future
goals.

Time
Block
0:0015:00

15:0030:00

Initial Question(s)

Examples of Prompting Questions and
Facilitation Notes
To help your team get to know you, we would like to  Individual introductions
hear about how you used the makerspace (i.e.
 Facilitator will write summary notes or
something you made, explored, learned or facilitated
responses related to personal or
relating to the space).
professional goals that will be used in the
We would also like to know about personal or
next time block.
professional goals that you have related to the
 Facilitator will prompt response if both
makerspace (i.e. how do you see the Makerspace
questions are not answered.
helping you in the future?)
 Facilitator will acknowledge similarities in
*The responses are used in the next time block.
the participant’s responses (e.g. “That is
such an interesting project Bill! Both you
and Suzan have really explored the whole
design process to make unique projects.”)
What improvements, services or changes at the
 Facilitator will prompt the group to look at
Makerspace do you think would help others in the
common factors related to goals and goals
group accomplish their goals?
individually (e.g. “Several of you
mentioned that you want to use what you
learn in your future employment. What
things would help enable this?” or “Sarah
said that she wants to develop a prototype
for a puzzle toy to be 3D printed. What
things could help support her in this?”)
84

85
Training and
access

Accessibility and
Diversity

A summary of current equipment in the makerspace,  Individuals will be given time to explore
what is safety critical, and what is necessary to know
online resources (potentially ones that they
to ensure the equipment is not broken will be
themselves used) and post links they feel
provided by facilitator. Then these questions will be
are valuable.
asked:
 Based on time, facilitator may also prompt
As users of the makerspace, do you think that there is
group members to comment on the
anything else a first-time user must know before they
resources posted by others.
use the equipment?
Can you share the links for some resources that you
feel could help someone learning to use the
equipment and software in the makerspace?
*The responses are used in the next time block.
50:00- Based on your explorations and experience, as a
 Facilitator will prompt group discussion
90:00 group, please explore what the minimum training
(e.g. “That is an interesting perspective
that you think people require to safely use the
Sally, Fred what do you think?”)
equipment without damaging it?
 Based on time, the following additional
How do you think this training should be completed?
questions may be explored:
How should we recognize training that people have
 How could the Makerspace support
received (i.e. badges, certificates, list of trained
leadership within its users?
people)?
 What roles could Makerspace users
have?
 How would these roles and associated
responsibilities be assumed?
90:00- What does the Makerspace need to look like to make  Facilitator will prompt participants to
105:00 sure that everyone can have a positive experience in
consider factors such as program or level
the space?
of study, gender identity, nationality, role
at the university, and economic status or
background (e.g. “How should the
makerspace be set up to ensure that all
students and faculty, regardless of their
economic status can use the space?”)
30:0050:00

85

86
Appendix 5 – Welcome E-mail for Online Makerspace community of inquiry
Participants
***Please note that participants that sign up for the online Makerspace community of
inquiry will complete an online consent form when they sign up. They will be sent a copy
of the consent form electronically following their consent.
Good Day!
Thank you very much for volunteering to participate in the online Makerspace
community of inquiry from (__start date__) – (__end date__). Your participation will
help us improve the Makerspace and contribute to research aimed at reducing barriers in
community engagement. To thank you for your time, you will also be entered into a draw
to win a (__gift card description__).
You have already given your consent electronically when you signed up for this session,
however, if you have any questions related to the study or the consent process, please do
not hesitate to contact me at weaverL18@tru.ca or 819-209-3429.
Please follow the instructions below when logging in to the online space for the first time.
After you have logged in, we would like you to check out who else will be part of the
experience (look at introductions that have been posted) and then reply to introduce
yourself by sharing how you used the makerspace (we would love to see a picture of one
of your projects!) We would also like you to share any personal or professional goals
that you have related to the makerspace (i.e. how do you see the makerspace helping you
in the future). If you have not used the makerspace, please briefly share your area of
expertise related to the makerspace.
We are going to be using a chat tool called Mattermost. You can join by clicking the link
below and then creating an account name and password.
NOTE: this link should only be clicked on a laptop or desktop machine. Using a
phone or Tablet may cause errors. (__________user sign up link___________)
Once the account is created, Mattermost works well on mobile devices, including apps if
you want them. The tool itself is quite user friendly, but if you need any help, it has a
good online reference (or you can ask me questions).
https://docs.mattermost.com/help/getting-started/welcome-to-mattermost.html#the-basics
If for some reason, you do not receive a confirmation email after registering, please select
the “I forgot my password” link on the login screen and you should receive the e-mail.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at weaverL18@tru.ca or
819-209-3429. I look forward to meeting you online!
Lorri Weaver
MEd Student
weaverL18@tru.ca
819-209-3429
86

87
Appendix 6 – Research Ethics Board Approval
Tue, Apr 21,
do-not-reply-TRU@researchservicesoffice.com <do-not-reply2020 at 2:01 PM
TRU@researchservicesoffice.com>
To: "Harrison Michelle (Faculty Supervisor)" <mharrison@tru.ca>, "May Erin (Co-Investigator)"
<emay@tru.ca>, "Rees Carol(Faculty Supervisor)" <crees@tru.ca>, "Sayre Franklin(CoInvestigator)" <fsayre@tru.ca>, Lorraine Weaver <weaverl18@mytru.ca>
Cc: "truromeo@tru.ca" <truromeo@tru.ca>, "do-not-reply-TRU@researchservicesoffice.com"
<do-not-reply-TRU@researchservicesoffice.com>

April 21, 2020
Mrs. Lorraine Weaver
Faculty of Education and Social Work\Education
Thompson Rivers University
File Number: 102368
Approval Date: April 21, 2020
Expiry Date: April 21, 2021
Dear Mrs. Lorraine Weaver,
The Research Ethics Board has reviewed your application titled 'Engaging Communities in
Problem Solving through Online Communities of Inquiry (CoI): TRU Makerspace'. Your
application has been approved. You may begin the proposed research. This REB approval,
dated April 21, 2020, is valid for one year April 21, 2021.
Throughout the duration of this REB approval, all requests for modifications, renewals and
serious adverse event reports are submitted via the Research Portal. To continue your
proposed research beyond April 21, 2021, you must submit a Renewal Form before April 21,
2021. If your research ends before April 21, 2021, please submit a Final Report Form to close
out REB approval monitoring efforts.
If you have any questions about the REB review & approval process, please contact the
Research Ethics Office via 250.852.7122. If you encounter any issues when working in the
Research Portal, please contact the Research Office at 250.371.5586.
Sincerely,
Joyce O'Mahony
Chair, Research Ethics Board

87

88
Appendix 7 – Participant Consent
All participants completed the consent process using a survey through the university’s
SurveyMonkey application. They were provided with the following information relating
to consent. They indicated their consent by selecting the appropriate checkboxes shown
in the appendix as .
Please review this information as part of the consent process for the study:
Study Title: Engaging Communities in Problem Solving through Online
Communities of Inquiry (CoI): TRU Makerspace
Researchers:
Lorraine Weaver, Master of Education Student, 819-209-3429, weaverL18@tru.ca
Dr. Carol Rees, Associate Professor Faculty of Education and Social Work, 250-8285004, Crees@tru.ca
Dr. Michelle Harrison, Senior Instructional Designer Open Learning, 250-852-7000,
mharrison@tru.ca
Mr. Franklin Sayre, Librarian and Makerspace Administrator, 250-852-7127,
fsayre@tru.ca
Ms. Erin May, Librarian and Makerspace Administrator, 250-377-6055, emay@tru.ca
Background:
You are being invited to participate in this study because you have used the TRU
Makerspace (as a faculty or student) or have subject matter expertise related to the
Makerspace (technology, training or set-up). During this study you will participate in an
in-person or online focus group with the goal of contributing to the improvement of the
TRU Makerspace. In addition to helping improve the Makerspace, the results of this
study will be used in support of my thesis. You are encouraged to ask questions of the
researchers (contact information above) if you feel anything needs to be made clearer.
You will be given an electronic copy of this form for your records.
Purpose:
The purpose of this research is:
1. to explore interactions and inquiry in online and face to face settings; and,
2. to explore questions relating to the TRU Makerspace.
Procedures:
As part of this research, you will be part of a team of people working together to develop
solutions to questions related to the TRU Makerspace. You will meet your team, the
researchers and a member of TRU Makerspace in the online space. You will be asked to
spend approximately 1.75 hours of your time spread out over the course of 2 weeks.
Initially, you will create a user account and introduce yourself to your group. Then, you
will spend about 1.5 hours (about 10-20 minutes at a time) learning more about the
Makerspace, sharing ideas, listening to others and problem solving together. The
researchers will be looking at your activity (such as group discussions and interactions) in
88

89
the online community to help us understand if the online environment helped you to work
together as a team. The group solutions that are created will be considered to improve the
TRU Makerspace as well as contributing to research about the TRU Makerspace.
Transcripts and data from this research will be kept electronically on password protected
computers and deleted after five years.
Results:
Results of this research will be published and presented as part of my thesis. They may
also be published in academic journals or presented to interested parties. Quotations from
the focus groups may be used within reports, published works or presentations of the
results.
Benefits:
Being a part of this study will allow your voice and opinion to be heard and give you the
opportunity to improve the TRU Makerspace. If the online framework we have used
allows community teams to collaborate, it will give community organizations a way to
work together with people online who have trouble coming to in-person events. It will
give people who can not come to in-person events an opportunity to participate in the
same way as other community members, giving them a stronger voice.
Risks:
We have not identified any risks to your participation in this study; however, if we learn
anything during the research that may affect your willingness to continue being in the
study, we will tell you right away.
Renumeration:
To thank you for your time, you will be given the option of participating in a draw for a
gift card valued at $100.
Voluntary Participation:
You are under no obligation to participate in this study. The participation is completely
voluntary. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw
at any time. If you withdraw, the data collected up to that point will be included in the
study unless you request that the segments of your voice be removed from the transcript.
Confidentiality & Anonymity:
As you will be contributing ideas relating to the TRU Makerspace, you can choose to
have your contribution recognized (i.e. your name will be published) or you can choose
to remain anonymous (a pseudonym will be used for your name in all published work). If
you choose to participate using a pseudonym, records will not show any link to your real
name and information will be presented in the report in a way that your responses will not
be able to be identified. Although your e-mail will be used to provide you with log-in
information, your e-mail will not be retained in connection with your log-in after the
online experience is complete.

89

90
Please select one to indicate your choice to the researchers:
 I choose to have my contribution recognized (my name will be published)
 I choose to participate anonymously (a pseudonym will be used for my name)
Research Findings: Please indicate if you wish to receive an electronic copy of the
summary of the findings from the study and have the chance to comment on them:
 I would like to receive an electronic copy of the summary of the findings from the
study so that I may have the chance to comment on them.
 I do not wish to receive a copy of the summary of the findings.
We may use the data we get from this study in future research, but if we do this it will
have to be approved by a Research Ethics Board.
Contact Information for Questions:
If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact:
Lorraine Weaver, Principle Investigator, Masters of Education Student, 819-209-3429,
weaverL18@tru.ca
Dr. Carol Rees, Thesis Advisor, Associate Professor Faculty of Education and Social
Work, 250-828-5004, Crees@tru.ca
Dr. Michelle Harrison, Thesis Advisor, Senior Instructional Designer Open Learning,
250-852-7000, mharrison@tru.ca
The plan for this study has been reviewed by a Research Ethics Board at the Thompson
Rivers University. If you have questions about your rights or how research should be
conducted, you can email TRU-REB@tru.ca or 250-828-5000. This office is independent
of the researchers.
 I have read this form and the research study has been explained to me. I have been
given the opportunity to ask questions and my questions have been answered. If I have
additional questions, I have been told whom to contact. I agree to participate in the
research study described above and will receive an electronic copy of this consent form
after I confirm my consent. (Select Checkbox)

90