Conceptualising engineering student perceptions of synchronous and asynchronous online learning

ABSTRACT

Students’ perceptions towards synchronous and asynchronous online delivery modes of three engineering courses, in a large UK university is conceptualised, inspired by the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework. Using a qualitative methodology, 76 written student narratives were analysed. An overwhelming focus on the elements that helped them to process the information being taught and to synthesise their understanding (cognitive presence) was found, regardless of the delivery mode. Furthermore, despite the perceived benefits in terms of time management, narratives of asynchronous learning lacked connectivity between such cognitive elements and those allowing them to interact, share, and communicate their understanding with their peers and teachers (social presence). Student reflections on which delivery mode best supported their learning were conflicting at times, but a balance between cognitive and social presence is recommended to integrate the opportunities that stem from both.

KEYWORDS:

• Distance education and online learning
• social presence
• cognitive presence
• online engineering education

1. Introduction

Online learning environments are becoming increasingly popular within higher education settings globally. Such environments provide students with a wide array of benefits, including the ability to work flexibly and at a pace that suits them. This is achieved through individual on-demand access to learning materials and resources at any time, without the physical presence of a teacher, a delivery mode known as asynchronous. Naturally, asynchronous delivery can be performed without the conventional time and space constraints of face-to-face teaching, termed synchronous delivery.

In recent years, online learning environments have, almost exclusively, used asynchronous delivery, often regarded as complimentary to, or enhancing, the synchronous delivery (Reese 2015). For example, recording of lecture material, posting of recommended reading texts, online quizzes and student forums are all often used to support student learning and development outside of the classroom. In this context, asynchronous teaching has not been regarded as a replacement to synchronous teaching, due to its supplementary nature. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent ‘lockdowns’ have forced a rethink of the status quo, accelerating the shift towards online learning within higher education institutions. Indeed, these challenges affected educators worldwide (Demuyakor 2020; Tang et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2022).

For online learning to be effective, it is vital content delivery is achieved effectively, whether synchronous or asynchronous. In some instances, both delivery modes may be used together, often referred to as blending (Moorhouse and Wong 2022). Whilst this has been a major component of teaching in recent years, the shift to online learning environments has placed further emphasis on the need to adapt, improve, and implement this practice. The rapid transition from in-person to online-only learning requires clear, evidence-informed models, which can be used as a basis for the development of robust, blended online learning environments. Recently developed models remain untested, and adaptation of them based upon specific educational contexts should be performed to maximise their effectiveness (Hodges et al. 2020; Moorhouse and Wong 2022).

Online learning environments place a heavy reliance upon technology throughout their lifecycles. Here, the teacher should have a good technological competency, to facilitate the creation of learning environments for students (Rozitis 2017). This extends to being able to deal with technical issues as and when they arise, in both synchronous and asynchronous settings, where often a solution may be required immediately. Others have considered whether training of staff is required to improve competencies in these areas (Sánchez-Cruzado, Santiago Campión, and Sánchez-Compaña 2021).

During the shift from classroom to online teaching, many practitioners turned to the Community of Inquiry framework (CoI) (Oyarzun et al. 2021; Tan et al. 2020). This framework describes the key essential elements required for effective online learning experiences, grounded in a constructivist approach (Castellanos-Reyes 2020). An overview of the framework is displayed in Figure 1. The CoI framework contains three critical elements which form the educational experience: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 1999).

Figure 1. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Adapted from Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999).

The social presence allows students to interact, share and communicate their ideas and understanding with their peers, and discuss these with their teacher. Specifically, peer-to-peer learning is limited within online learning and is potentially difficult to facilitate (Britt 2006). Cognitive presence refers to how students process the information being taught and synthesise their understanding. Teaching presence refers to how the overall session is structured to promote achievement of the learning objectives. This includes whether the session is delivered in an asynchronous or synchronous format.

The CoI framework has been useful in providing initial guidance and structure to how online learning can be successful, through how this learning is either practised, or researched (Fiock 2020; Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 1999; Shea et al. 2010).

1.1. Social presence

The definition of social presence has evolved over time since the CoI framework was initially established (Kreijns, Xu, and Weidlich 2021). Often, it is thought of as the ‘sense of being with another’ which is possible regardless of whether synchronous or asynchronous delivery techniques are used (Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon 2003). Other definitions explicitly reference asynchronous and/or digital delivery modes (Lowry et al. 2006). Moreover, the social presence can be described by three key categories: effective communication, open communication, and cohesive responses (Rourke et al. 1999). These three elements reflect how the social presence of learning should be centred around creating open and inclusive environments, within which, students are comfortable enough to contribute to discourse which directly aids their learning (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007).

In the case of asynchronous teachings, the social presence may be much more difficult to establish, as students and teachers interact with potentially different content at different times. For example, response time in asynchronous communication has previously been shown to be pivotal in this regard, as, if the recipient failed to respond within the expected time, less social presence was perceived (Tu and McIsaac 2002). One study noted that when students replied to online forum questions from their teacher, often emotions were shared, and off-topic discussions were had (Li and Yu 2020). The use of first names, a conversationalist approach, and group discussions have also been shown to be useful in building social presence in online asynchronous discussions, such as forums and discussion boards (Evans et al. 2020). With online learning in particular, where asynchronous delivery usually sits, social presence is thought to be of critical importance to student attainment, to alleviate the potential isolation of students (Dixson 2015).

These findings are mirrored within synchronous teaching delivery, where direct interaction between parties is beneficial to building learning amongst students, whilst also encouraging them to engage directly with the session at hand (Gosmire, Morrison, and Van Osdel 2009; Schullo et al. 2007). As such, synchronous teachings can naturally involve a higher degree of social interaction, including between students themselves and the teacher involved. Indeed, the building and sustaining of a community by student groups has been shown to be directly related to both the learning outcomes of sessions, and the social presence of the CoI framework (Swan and Shih 2005).

Whether asynchronous or synchronous settings are adopted in higher education environments, social presence should be considered objectively in maximising student engagement and learning. A student’s ability to interact with their peers and instructors (and feel comfortable in doing so) has a clear influence on the acquisition of knowledge (Baskin, Barker, and Woods 2004; Wieman 2019). This persists regardless of whether the environment is online, or in-person.

1.2. Cognitive presence

The role of cognitive presence is imperative in how students can construct and affirm the meaning of, and their understanding of, educational resources (Sadaf, Wu, and Martin 2021). As such, cognitive presence is often regarded as the most difficult of the three presences to study, particularly in the context of online courses (Celani and Collins 2005; Garrison and Arbaugh 2007). Often, cognitive presence is framed in terms of a practical inquiry model whereby a cycle of four distinctive phases occurs. These are named as triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2001). These distinct phases can be useful in understanding and analysing how students construct their own understanding.

Asynchronous teaching, particularly in the context of online environments, has been identified as a suitable method for students to build their knowledge, particularly due to the greater flexibility in the learning process (Hrastinski 2008). In terms of discussions or forums, students are able to interact with each other to aid in the mutual construction of knowledge and understanding (Darabi et al. 2011). Here, it is important that the context of the discussion must be well-framed and designed for students, as a means of producing meaningful conversations which lead to learning at a deeper level (Han and Hill 2007). The effectiveness of such tasks has been shown to be greater if authentic, real-world contexts are provided to such discussions (Naidu et al. 2007).

Online synchronous teaching can make use of a variety of different software to improve interactivity between students, their peers, and teachers. Those which involve both visual and audio communication, such as video conferencing through Microsoft Teams, have a host of tools, including polls, breakout rooms, interactive whiteboards etc. As such, they could have the potential to replicate traditional classroom settings rather well (Gillies 2008). Previous research using such tools has shown the benefit to students in building a learning environment that is collaborative (Borel 2013). Moreover, synchronous delivery has demonstrated a higher level of cognitive presence, assessed by both students and teachers alike, when compared to similar asynchronous formats (Rockinson-Szapkiw and Wendt 2015).

The cognitive presence is pivotal in allowing students to begin to understand new information, and synthesise this in an individualised, constructive manner. Whilst synchronous environments may allow students and teachers to interact in real-time, and thus, improve overall cognitive presence, it is unclear whether this allows adequate reflection time for students of prior conversations, which is pivotal in the overall integration of new knowledge (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Schwartz, Tsang, and Blair 2016).

1.3. Teaching presence

The final element of the CoI framework is the teaching presence, which has previously been reported as ‘a significant determinant of student satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community’ (Garrison and Arbaugh 2007). It has been defined as utilising the cognitive and social presences, as mentioned previously, in a way that promotes students to understand the value of the current learning outcomes. This can be achieved through the provision of accessibility, professionalism and supportiveness of teachers (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 1999). However, there is clear disagreement within the literature regarding the overall balance of these three components, and the precedent that each should be given (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Fung 2010).

1.4. Gap in literature and research questions

Overall, there is a vast literature on the effective use of the CoI framework in online courses (Martin et al. 2022). However, this is not without its challenges, such as the apparent lack of correlation between teacher-assessed achievement of learning outcomes, and both CoI and student-perceived learning in some contexts (Maddrell, Morrison, and Watson 2017). Synchronous delivery compared to asynchronous delivery has been shown to directly promote social presence, and the overall community of student cohorts (Hrastinski 2008). This finding has been supported by a marked decrease in students reporting feeling isolated, distant, or disconnected from their peers when engaging in an asynchronous online learning environment (Wang and Chen 2007). Olubunmi and McCracken (2008) demonstrated how this links directly to improved critical thinking by learners.

However, there are few research studies that compare the CoI presences to each other or conceptualise student perceptions of such presences in synchronous and asynchronous learning experiences (Molnar and Kearney 2017; Rockinson-Szapkiw 2009). There are even fewer studies examining the influence of the delivery mode in the context of online engineering education. One such study examined the online learning of higher education engineering students, finding that teaching presence contributed more significantly to cognitive presence, compared to social presence (Purwandari, Junus, and Santoso 2022). This is in agreement with a prior study, where teaching presence was found to be most prevalent in the constructing of a blended synchronous community of inquiry (Szeto 2015).

Not many studies have utilised the CoI framework to further current research into the 2020–2022 worldwide higher education landscape. This has been limited to utilising the framework as a means of informing and improving teaching, during the switch from in-person teaching to online-only teaching during the height of the pandemic (Tan et al. 2020). This includes, predominantly, assessing how the three presences of the framework can be fostered and enhanced within learning environments (Tan 2021). Student perceptions of the three presences were shown to vary little between online and in-person teachings in one study, although the small sample and highly diverse teaching methods may be responsible for this trend (Oyarzun et al. 2021).

To address these gaps in the realm of engineering education, a study is conducted to understand how synchronous and asynchronous delivery affect the cognitive and social presences using students’ perceptions and written narratives. Teaching presence is largely determined by the unique qualities of teachers, and therefore students’ sense of teaching presence was excluded from the study, as this variable was not controlled. Thus, this approach is inspired by the CoI framework, across three core engineering modules at the undergraduate level in a large UK university. Other researchers have adopted the CoI framework in their studies to investigate the effect of synchronous and asynchronous deliveries in their teaching. Szeto (2015) used the CoI instructional approach in their study to explore the effects of the presences in online and face-to-face teaching on students and their instructor. In another work, CoI was modified to be used for an online course by implementing instructional strategies (Fiock 2020). Development of the CoI framework for distance education practitioners is discussed by (Garrison 2000). In another study (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2001) used the conceptual framework for a community of inquiry to describe a practical approach to discuss the nature and quality of critical discourse in distance learning.

The following research questions were devised:

• In the context of online engineering courses, what elements of the learning experience do students perceive support social and cognitive presences?

• How are the elements that prompt social and cognitive presences connected during synchronous and asynchronous delivery?

2. Methodology

Based on the nature of the above questions, this research uses a qualitative methodology. In Section 2.1, the academic background of the participants is described. Section 2.2 includes an explanation of the types of synchronous and asynchronous activities that were delivered across three different engineering courses. Section 2.3 comprises a description of the qualitative methodology, including data collection and analysis.

2.1. Participants

To address the research questions, different undergraduate cohorts of Civil, Chemical, and Environmental Engineering students at a large UK university (with substantial international cohorts) volunteered to participate. All the participants were enrolled in core modules that were fully delivered online using a blended approach, consisting of a mix of synchronous and asynchronous activities to support student learning. Synchronous activities were delivered through Microsoft Teams video calls, whereas asynchronous activities were uploaded onto the university virtual learning environment (Moodle). Details of such activities are described in Section 2.2.

A total of 76 students agreed to participate in this study, including 31 students from Civil Engineering, 33 students from Chemical Engineering, and 12 students from Environmental Engineering. All students on each respective course were invited to participate in the study. Background information, such as gender or ethnicity, was not collated for this study.

2.2. Description of the synchronous and asynchronous activities

Geotechnics (G) is a third year undergraduate core civil engineering module where students are exposed to principles governing steady state and transient groundwater flow and seepage for civil engineering applications. 110 students were enrolled in this course during the 2020–2021 academic year. The primary learning outcomes are designed to facilitate students in undertaking 1-D and 2-D water flow calculations, time-dependent settlement calculations, and in determining soil properties for use in foundation stability problems. Upon completion of the module, students should have a thorough understanding of the processes surrounding time-related soil settlements, how to quantify these, and how to design ground improvement schemes to mitigate these issues in real civil engineering applications. The module is examined primary through a year-end timed summative assessment (90% of the grade) and two in-sessional coursework assignments released during each semester of the module programme (5% each). The module is delivered over the course of two semesters (20 UK credits, 10 ECTs) via weekly timetabled sessions, by means of a combination of asynchronous and synchronous delivery. The asynchronous component comprises a combination of recorded videos where lecture slides are voiced over with annotations and notes, prescribed reading, and formative feedback quizzes. Each week also contains two 1-hour synchronously delivered sessions over Microsoft Teams, a 1-hour problem class where example problems are demonstrated, and a 1-hour Q&A to facilitate discourse on the module content.

Reactor Design (R) is a third year undergraduate core chemical engineering module where students learn the principles behind the design of different types of reactors, including an understanding of the principles of batch and continuous operations and the required criteria for reactor selection. There were 142 students enrolled in this module during the 2020–2021 academic year. The module consists of eight topics, each of them covering a fundamental principle of reactor design (e.g. mass and energy balance, kinetics, and stoichiometry). The module is delivered over the Autumn semester (10 UK credits, 5 ECTs) via two weekly sessions (2-hours each). One of the sessions is used to introduce the main topics, and the other session is a tutorial-type session focused on problem solving. Both are delivered synchronously through Microsoft Teams. Further practice is encouraged through a series of additional questions and worked solutions for these are shared with students asynchronously through pre-recorded videos. Students can watch these videos on their own time outside scheduled sessions and then ask questions about them during the tutorial-type sessions. The module is examined through three coursework assignments released during the Autumn semester of the module programme (each one is worth 1/3 of the module mark).

Materials and Sustainable Processes (MSP) is a second year undergraduate core environmental engineering module where students are introduced to the main principles of waste management and resource recovery. In the academic year of 2020–2021, the cohort size was 186. Students are expected to be able to assess the sustainability implications of waste treatment techniques and technologies and selecting and applying quantitative methodologies to waste management problems. The module is assessed through a year-end timed summative assessment (60% of the grade) and one in-sessional coursework assignment (40%). The module is delivered over the course of the Spring semester (20 UK credits, 10 ECTs) via weekly timetabled sessions, by means of a combination of asynchronous and synchronous delivery. The synchronous component includes a combination of content delivery, Q&A using the chat functionality of Microsoft Teams and practical modelling and problem-solving, taking place in two sessions (2-hour and 1-hour sessions, respectively). Each week also contains diverse asynchronous elements, including a set of pre-recorded videos (e.g. industrially relevant processes or review of live sessions) and varied homework activities (e.g. design calculations and flowsheet, individual posts in the course forum or Kahoot checkpoint quizzes).

It is important to note that in this study the authors are not looking at the influence of how these different engineering modules were delivered as part of the devised research questions. Rather, as described in Section 2.3 below, a substantial pool of data from different engineering courses was collated to gain an overall picture for engineering education.

2.3. Data analysis

Qualitative data can provide a rich picture to address the research questions, unravelling specific elements of cognitive and social presences, which are felt to be important through a student’s view. Two free-text questions were included in an electronic form to capture the perspective of the student experience regarding synchronous and asynchronous activities.

All the participants were asked to provide written narratives for which they had to reflect on their experiences with synchronous and asynchronous teaching delivery:

1. Which delivery mode (between live or non-live activities) do you perceive offered more support at providing a better learning experience and why?

2. Which elements of the delivery of both live and non-live teaching should be changed to provide a better learning experience?

These two questions were carefully phrased to avoid students being confused by unfamiliar terms to them such as ‘synchronous’, ‘asynchronous’, ‘cognitive presence’ or ‘social presence’. The authors worked together with an experienced educational researcher to make sure that the necessary elements within such questions were captured to reliably inform the original research questions. The first question above, (a), was designed to collect information about students’ views on the two delivery modes and their experience with them, and to then relate these experiences to the extent to which social and cognitive presences were integrated into synchronous and asynchronous delivery (first research question). The words ‘live’ and ‘non-live’ were added into the question to clarify that participants needed to think about these delivery modes and to discuss which of them supported their learning more effectively. In addition, the word ‘why’ at the end of question (a) was added to motivate students to justify their responses. The second question above, (b), was asked to understand which delivery elements could improve the learning experience. The collected answers from (b) helped to identify different areas inherent to cognitive and social presences that were not properly addressed – through students’ lenses – and that need further research, as discussed in Section 4.3.

In short, the written responses were used as data sources for the qualitative analysis. Sourcing the data through written responses allowed for larger sample collection from all the participants to avoid any selection biases. To address the first research question, deductive thematic analysis methodology was firstly applied to analyse such data (Nowell et al. 2017) to shape a number of qualitative code themes, which described the students’ experience based on the delivery mode (synchronous vs asynchronous). Axial coding was then used to list each of the code themes either in the cognitive or social presence categories, and their delivery modes were identified (Williams and Moser 2019). This overall process is demonstrated in Figure 2. Finally, to address the second research question, network diagrams were produced to illustrate the connections between the two categories and the code themes represented by both synchronous and asynchronous modes.

Figure 2. Example of data processing for qualitative analysis.

To ensure the reliability of the findings, several aspects were considered. First, the form was administered at the end of the term but before the students had received any course marks. In doing so, this enabled the mitigation of student bias in the responses, which were solely based on their personal learning experiences and not on final assessments and outcomes of the modules. Second, the entire cohorts corresponding to each of the engineering courses were offered the choice to undertake in responding to a questionnaire. Since the response rate was not overwhelming, an independent senior researcher was consulted and their experiences as educator resonated with our findings, on the importance of cognitively processing new information in an online environment, beyond the features associated to the social environment. Third, the coding methodology was tested and validated by an independent researcher by means of an inter-reliability test. The researcher ensured that the survey was appropriately designed to capture the necessary elements within the qualitative survey questions to inform the research questions in a reliable way, and that the coding process was verified. Nevertheless, the coding was exclusively based on responses to perceived support at providing better learning experiences.

The questions included in the form were reviewed and approved by the relevant ethics committee. All participants were informed about the form and the purpose of this study by the authors of this work. Forms were distributed during class time in the form of digital copies to the 76 students who agreed to participate in this study, and there was no time limit. All students signed consent forms, and they could remove their data from the study upon request. 15 responses to question (a) and 17 responses to question (b) were discarded as they did not relate to the questions being asked. Finally, 61 valid responses from question (a) and 59 valid responses from question (b) were collected. The total response rate can be broken down per modules as 28.2% for G, 23.2% for R and 6.5% for MSP.

3. Results

Seven code themes were identified from the synchronous mode, whereas four code themes emerged from the asynchronous mode. These themes were aligned and categorised into the two main categories using axial coding (Figure 2): cognitive presence and social presence. Following axial coding, three code themes for synchronous mode were found to be representative of elements underpinning cognitive presence and four code themes were identified to be representative of social presence. In the case of asynchronous mode, three code themes represented elements of the cognitive presence and one code theme was aligned with an element of social presence.

All the code themes that emerged in each category are listed in Tables 1 and 2. There were some common themes across synchronous and asynchronous modes (e.g. ‘confirmation of understanding’, or ‘self-assessment and reflection’). Others were solely identified in asynchronous mode (e.g. ‘time management’) or synchronous mode (e.g. ‘knowledge reinforcement’). Since most students described cases where both synchronous and asynchronous modes were used, their responses were assigned to the code themes for both delivery modes. Most of the students explicitly wrote which delivery mode provided a better learning experience for them. In some cases, the responses were not as explicit, and therefore we sought an agreement between the coder and another researcher.

Table 1. Code theme list for cognitive presence category.

Code theme name	Delivery mode	Definition
Confirmation of understanding	Synchronous	Questions can be asked in real-time and answered in an understandable way
	Asynchronous	Questions can be posted on the Moodle page forums or Microsoft Teams chat channels. Responses can be seen by all students
Knowledge reinforcement	Synchronous	Having the opportunity to discuss the teaching materials and to listen to the questions asked by peers in real-time helps to reinforce the learned content
Self-assessment and reflection	Synchronous	Live tutorial sessions can provide the opportunity to go through worksheets along with other students and academic in real-time. Instant feedback given and used to identify learning gaps
	Asynchronous	Students can go through worksheets at their own pace and post their ideas in the provided forums for discussion. Written feedback on the submitted coursework can be received and students can reflect on the provided comments.
Time management	Asynchronous	Recorded videos can be re-watched when needed, with opportunities to pause and take notes

Table 2. Code theme list for social presence category.

Code theme name	Delivery mode	Definition
Social learning	Synchronous	Easier interaction between students. Questions and ideas can be purposefully discussed and better understood. Purposeful communication and peer interactions drive social learning
	Asynchronous	Students can discuss learning materials and worksheets offline, helping to build interactive and constructive conversation
Trusting environment	Synchronous	Students feel that there is a safe, judgment-free learning environment. Ideas can be safely shared in a live session
Sense of community	Synchronous	Motivation to turn laptops on and to join scheduled teaching sessions as a result of knowing that other students and the academic will be present and that they will be able to communicate with them
Competition-based learning	Synchronous	Active engagement in competitive learning activities; for example, live quizzes where students can benchmark themselves against their peers

All the coding and data analysis was completed manually. To ensure the reliability of the qualitative analysis, 20% of the responses were randomly selected and analysed by a senior education researcher. An interrater reliability test was performed and a Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) equal to 0.98 was derived, which indicated high interrater agreement between the coders (McHugh 2012).

The qualitative results are presented below in terms of two main findings. First, the student experience, as it relates to the teaching delivery mode, is largely determined by the cognitive presence that is embedded within the online course, with students emphasising opportunities for confirming their understanding and managing when, where, and how they can learn the disciplinary engineering content. Second, the lack of interpersonal engagement leads to poor social presence in asynchronous delivery with a resulting major impact on the online student experience. The code themes for asynchronous delivery were characterised by a lower number of interconnections than those of synchronous delivery. In the following sections, the authors explain the main findings of this research study, and support these with evidence of selected extracts from student narratives and survey findings. For completeness, Appendix includes the full breakdown of responses corresponding to each of the three engineering courses.

3.1. Finding 1: focus on cognitive presence

The first finding is that cognitive presence was the most common focus of students in their written narratives, more so than social presence elements. Table 3 presents the percentage of total responses to the qualitative question (a) stated in Section 2.3, for each category (cognitive and social presences) and their corresponding code themes (see Tables 1 and 2). Both categories contained code themes related to synchronous and asynchronous delivery. Cognitive presence category had the most responses (100% responses addressed cognitive presence elements in both synchronous and asynchronous delivery). The social presence category contained more than ten times as many responses associated with synchronous as asynchronous delivery.

Table 3. Summary of code themes for each category as a percentage of responses (n = 61) to the survey question (a) ‘Which delivery mode (between live or non-live activities) do you perceive offered more support at providing a better learning experience and why?’

Category name	Percentage of total responses		Code theme	Percentage of total responses
	Synchronous	Asynchronous		Synchronous	Asynchronous
Cognitive presence	100.0	100.0	Confirmation of understanding	54.1	18.0
			Knowledge reinforcement	29.5	–
			Self-assessment and reflection	19.7	8.2
			Time management	–	73.8
Social presence	36.1	3.3	Social learning	19.7	3.3
			Trusting environment	4.9	–
			Sense of community	1.6	–
			Competition-based learning	9.8	–

The opportunities students had to confirm their understanding and to reinforce their knowledge seem to be critical at prompting cognitive presence. Particularly, 65%, 60% and 35% of the responses from the synchronous delivery of R, MSP and G modules, respectively, addressed the former, whereas 36%, 30% and 20% of the responses from asynchronous delivery of R, MSP and G modules focussed on the latter (see Appendix). The quotations below show how important these elements were from a student perspective:

Live lectures made it possible to ask questions at each stage to help develop more understanding and interacting with the lecturer and other students […] lectures (were) more interactive, making it easier to concentrate and learn.

Live activities provided a better learning experience for problem solving and deepening understanding. The opportunity to answer questions in real time was great formative feedback and got me thinking about the topic. The in-class polls are also very good fun and answering questions with others helps generate a feeling of collaboration. Individual questions to complete are always very appreciated and a great supplement to the live problem solving!

In these responses, confirmation of understanding and reinforcing the knowledge are the elements promoting cognitive presence. Building understanding is a key cognitive process that starts with students being presented with new knowledge that has to be integrated within prior knowledge in order for it to be acquired (Magana et al. 2019). As time goes on, connections between the nascent knowledge and the students’ prior knowledge start to build, but as students practice and receive feedback on their performance at using and manipulating the new knowledge, this starts to become integrated into their domain knowledge (Schwartz, Tsang, and Blair 2016). The mechanisms through which students experienced opportunities to confirm their understanding and reinforce their knowledge were fully related to prompting cognitive presence during synchronous delivery as shown in the above examples.

Peer learning also helped students to reinforce their knowledge in line with previous literature (Topping 2005) and seemed to improve students learning experience in the online environment:

Live [synchronous] - I much prefer being able to ask questions and have them answered quickly face-to-face and be able to discuss with lots of different people to provide different opinions. If non-live [asynchronous] everyone watches at different times so it’s harder to ask for help or discuss topics. I think live activities offer an environment more related to what we would get if we were in a lecture hall together and I enjoy being able to discuss and debate with my peers. I especially think live learning is better than non-live when learning completely new topics as any problems in understanding can be sorted immediately.

Personally, for me I prefer Live. This way I can follow the lecturer and then also listen to other students’ ideas and thoughts about particular problems. Sometimes I’m not 100% sure the concepts raised in the lecture, so doing things live gives me a more solid understanding.

Listening to other students’ questions and participating in discussions to reinforce the learning content are the two main comments students included in their responses. Educational research has shown that peer learning could improve academic achievement while fostering communication skills (Boud and Cohen 2014; Polkowski, Jadeja, and Dutta 2020; Schwartz, Tsang, and Blair 2016).

In general, knowledge reinforcement goes beyond confirmation of understanding, as it helps to consolidate knowledge, typically through directive and immediate feedback. While students seem to view the opportunities for knowledge reinforcement as contributing positively, they did not identify them in asynchronous delivery activities in any of the engineering courses.

Time management also had an impact at supporting cognitive presence. Particularly, it seemed to drive engagement with asynchronous delivery, with students reporting how they made effective use of recorded videos at their own pace:

Non-live lectures were very beneficial as it is useful to be able to pause and also re-watch sections to fully understand the content. Non-live activities also allow students to work, and their own time and pace (sic) and I think more students are likely to ask questions on (Microsoft Teams software) channels after a lecture is finished and they have gone through the content, rather than actually during a live lecture.

3.2. Finding 2: stronger connections associated with breadth of interpersonal engagement

The second major finding is that the elements associated with synchronous delivery formed a more interconnected network than the elements associated with asynchronous delivery. Figure 3 depicts network diagrams for synchronous and asynchronous delivery modes. For instance, the most common response in Figure 3 is ‘Time Management’, identified in 45 out of 61 student responses and is represented by the largest circle. The edges (i.e. connections between the circles) illustrate the number of cases where both themes were coded within a specific student response. For instance, 13 out of 61 students whose response was coded for ‘Time Management’ were also coded with ‘Confirmation of Understanding’ for asynchronous delivery while 6 were also coded with ‘Self-assessment and Reflection’. Elements of social presence have an important part in the synchronous delivery mode, however, the lack of these elements in the asynchronous delivery mode is significant.

Figure 3. Network diagram for code themes of cognitive and social presences categories for qualitative Question 1. Nodes (circles) represent the code themes for the cognitive presence category (purple) and the social presence category (orange). Size of the nodes (circles) and edges (lines) are proportional to the number of the responses.

To evaluate the interconnectedness of the themes in the network, we noted how many connections were observed between cognitive and social presence elements in the network diagrams. In the case of synchronous delivery, there were 22 connections as opposed to 3 connections for the case of the asynchronous delivery network. This lack of interconnectivity suggests that during asynchronous activities, students did not significantly experience the full potential of interpersonal engagement to achieve a more meaningful CoI-based learning experience, and this may have led to poorer social presence. A student noted:

[…] there was actual interaction and discussion (in live teaching) which was not there in the non-live events. In the non-live events, I felt like it was just something I was doing in my own time rather than something done with other course members.

This response suggests that asynchronous delivery could be having an impact on students’ interpersonal engagement as face-to-face interactions (student-student and student-teacher) may have been limited, impacting negatively on the online learning experience. However, this issue has the potential to be improved through further use of available technologies, interactive activities, and collaborative learning (Mehall 2020).

The network diagram also shows that there is some interconnectivity between ‘Confirmation of Understanding’ and ‘Social Learning’ in both synchronous and asynchronous delivery modes, and the following extracts corresponding to the same module, R, reinforce this:

Live - I much prefer being able to ask questions and have them answered quickly face-to-face and be able to discuss with lots of different people to provide different opinions. In non-live everyone watches at different times so it’s harder to ask for help or discuss topics. I think live activities offer an environment more related to what we would get if we were in a lecture hall together and I enjoy being able to discuss and debate with my peers. I especially think live learning is better than non-live when learning completely new topics as any problems in understanding can be sorted immediately.

I prefer non-live activities as it helps to ask questions easily. I can work with my friends on problems, ask them for help […]. I wasn't really comfortable writing in the chat as well as spending too much time on my laptop (I would get tired and bored easily). Also, I prefer non-live so that I can ask questions to the lecturer and go see her/him in the office, it's better for explanation rather than asking in front of everyone. For me, it was hard as I am a shy person, and my English is not good.

Although each student above preferred different delivery modes, both mentioned the mechanisms they found useful to address their queries in synchronous and asynchronous sessions, coded as ‘Confirmation of Understanding’. Furthermore, both student narratives included very different stories about how they participated in discussions with other students, coded as ‘Social Learning’. Connections amongst social and cognitive presences are described by rather complex phenomena, and seemingly constrained by the delivery mode.

4. Discussion

This study focusses on explaining how synchronous and asynchronous delivery impart social and cognitive presence in different engineering courses entailing a variety of learning activities through a CoI framework-inspired approach. The authors analysed the narratives of three engineering student cohorts, written after they had completed their courses and had been assessed. The students reflected on their experiences with synchronous and asynchronous activities and the support that these offered as part of their learning experience. Categories and themes that surfaced were identified from these student narratives and evidenced with significant extracts. The learning experience is conditioned by prominent themes of the CoI framework-inspired approach in which these students and their teachers take part, in addition to the ways in which these themes are interconnected. The two main findings are further discussed below as well as the associated implications for educational practice.

4.1. Discussion on finding 1: focus on cognitive presence

Thirty-one valid student responses reported that the same level of cognitive presence was fostered for both synchronous and asynchronous delivery in R module. By comparison, in MSP, 10 valid responses mentioned cognitive presence in synchronous delivery and 3 of those valid responses additionally included asynchronous delivery. This implies that only 30% of the students felt that asynchronous delivery fostered cognitive presence, suggesting that asynchronous delivery did not impact significantly in this respect (see Appendix). This is similar to the findings of Rockinson-Szapkiw and Wendt (2015) who note that synchronous delivery demonstrates a higher level of cognitive presence as compared to asynchronous delivery. This is likely a function of how these modules were structured and is reasonable when one considers that a direct delivery approach using live teaching is more likely to engage cognitive presence in the learning environment. There is a higher percentage of valid responses suggesting ‘Confirmation of Understanding’ and ‘Knowledge Reinforcement’ were fostered in terms of cognitive presence across all three modules for synchronous compared to asynchronous delivery. This is also not unexpected when one considers that synchronous delivery is likely to foster an atmosphere where knowledge transfer can be controlled and confirmed by the relational nature of real-life delivery, i.e. a teacher can see for themselves if students understand the material being delivered. This is naturally much more challenging for asynchronous delivery, where the teacher-student interaction is reduced or even removed. On the contrary, cognitive presence received more valid responses for the asynchronous delivery in the G module than for the synchronous delivery. This is possibly a result of how the asynchronous content was structured – the G module structured material on a week-by-week basis, outlining the material to be covered, the time required for each element, and the nature of the interactive elements (social presence). This form of structure has been shown to facilitate deeper learning where materials are sufficiently well-framed (Han and Hill 2007). By contrast, the synchronous elements comprised a weekly Q&A, which was poorly attended, and a demonstration class for example problems. In terms of asynchronous delivery, students scored ‘Time Management’ highly across all modules, which is readily understood based on the nature of the asynchronous delivery. For the G module, the timings that students were expected to spend on various elements were provided so students understood exactly what was expected of them each week, facilitating the scheduling of their learning appropriately. Interestingly, ‘Self-assessment and Reflection’ scored more highly for synchronous delivery than for asynchronous, suggesting that students found it more accessible to self-reflect in the presence of supervised learning than on their own (as via asynchronous).

4.2. Discussion on finding 2: stronger connections associated with breadth of interpersonal engagement

The overlap between the social and cognitive presence in the CoI framework-inspired approach shows the supporting role of the teacher to create a satisfactory environment. This indicates the challenges related to online teaching specifically where the asynchronous learning may become dominant (Shea and Bidjerano 2009).

There were more valid responses reporting a stronger social presence for the synchronous delivery than asynchronous across all three modules. This is unsurprising in that the asynchronous content broadly promotes self-study or is insular in nature, which can lead to feelings of isolation in students (Dixson 2015). ‘Social Learning’ received a higher number of valid responses as a code theme for all three modules under the synchronous category. Some students reported ‘Social Learning’ was fostered under asynchronous delivery for the R module, likely a result of how the coursework was delivered (there was an asynchronous coursework undertaken in groups, hence incorporating social interactions inherently). In general, the nature of the online learning seemed to have a detrimental impact on social presence regardless of the course and types of activities (Baskin, Barker, and Woods 2004; Tu and McIsaac 2002). Students reported no ‘Sense of Community’ associated with the asynchronous delivery under social presence in any module (only R module had elements of this under synchronous delivery, see Appendix). This is in line with previous research which notes that for asynchronous content, it is difficult to establish social presence due to the disparity in times that both students and teacher interact with content (Tu and McIsaac 2002). Moreover, ‘Competition-based Learning’ only received valid responses under synchronous modes of delivery – a factor that is important to some students.

4.3. Limitations of this study

This research study has some limitations. Most notably, the data were collected from highly diverse engineering cohorts from within several departments within a single institution, using a single questionnaire form. Within this, the authors ensured as best as possible the reliability of the findings in several aspects. Whilst the coding methodology was effective to generate a reasonable proxy to infer what elements students perceived to support social and cognitive presences, the findings presented in Table 3 and Figure 3 do not capture what is yet to be resolved. Therefore, the authors of this study used the responses to the second qualitative question in the survey, (b), to interpret which elements require a stronger focus in moving this study forward. Table 4 presents the percentage of total responses to the qualitative question (b) stated in Section 2.3, for each category (cognitive and social presences) and their corresponding code themes. Overall, the number of responses relating to social presence is much more significant, with 41.4% of them concerning the synchronous delivery mode. These responses were mainly focused on the need for reproducing more conventional on-campus learning approaches where students can develop stronger interactions with peers as illustrated by the extract below:

Live teaching should be changed to greater develop the learning experience because the interaction with students is minimal in the sense that if there were no name icons displayed in Microsoft Teams, you wouldn't know who was in the call. Collaboration and a sense of a group learning could be improved to for example tackle problems in small groups with the tutor dropping in and out of the breakout room and then reconvene to see the final solution. Albeit a longer process, it replicates a classroom environment where the lecturer can walk around and provide support and you receive collaboration with other classmates.

Interestingly, there was a great majority of responses relating to ‘Time Management’ aspects (55.1%), and the extract below shows why this cognitive presence element needs to be further enhanced:

Table 4. Summary of code themes for each category as a percentage of responses (n = 58) to survey question (b) ‘Which elements of the delivery of both live and non-live teaching should be changed to provide a better overall learning experience?’

Category name	Percentage of total responses		Code theme	Percentage of total responses
	Synchronous	Asynchronous		Synchronous	Asynchronous
Cognitive presence	55.2	72.4	Confirmation of understanding	12.1	8.6
			Knowledge reinforcement	22.4	–
			Self-assessment and reflection	20.7	8.6
			Time management	–	55.1
Social presence	41.4	8.6	Social learning	20.7	6.9
			Trusting environment	17.2	1.7
			Sense of community	3.4	–

Ensuring order structure to access to recordings would be useful […] in order to follow along in your own time. Again, often students get lost in lectures due to the pace that lecturers must keep up to fit within the time frame so more detailed previously non live recorded sessions may be useful.

This student explains that the digital infrastructure and structured guidance to access course resources may be an issue that needs to be addressed. Furthermore, they describe that the pace at which teaching happens online might have made students adopt negative feelings, and despite having access to recorded videos from these sessions – recognised as a positive element as discussed in Section 3.1.2 – more comprehensive pre-recorded videos could help at building further understanding.

5. Conclusions

Within the Community of Inquiry framework, elements of cognitive presence such as ‘Confirmation of Understanding’, ‘Knowledge Reinforcement’ or ‘Time Management’ are the most frequently cited in this research study at supporting learning in an online environment for very different engineering courses. While students recognised the importance of peer learning, they did not seem to have harnessed the full potential of available online resources, such as Moodle forums and Microsoft Teams chat channels to engage on it, and they tended to focus more on opportunities to build understanding through direct interaction with teachers. This rather lack of interpersonal engagement with peers has shown to lead to poorer interconnections between social and cognitive presence and, under the CoI framework-inspired approach and the diverse teaching approaches and activities considered in this study, synchronous delivery appears to have provided more meaningful learning experiences from a student perspective. However, educational research has long established that interacting with peers during the learning process supports learning in numerous ways; for instance, learning the standards of argument of the engineering discipline, developing metacognitive skills through critique of others’ reasoning, or getting timely knowledge and feedback from peers (Wieman 2019). Online learning – either delivered by means of synchronous or asynchronous mode – should still strive for integrating a balance between cognitive and social presences, perhaps by providing the required credit for such social interactions to happen through assessment.

Future work will focus on developing a deeper understanding of effective online design to further facilitate social presence, perhaps to be used in tandem with physical synchronous delivery in a blended educational framework.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham for funding of student participation prize for the survey conducted.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Maryam Mohammad Zadeh

Dr. Maryam Mohammad Zadeh is Assistant Professor in Chemical and Environmental Engineering at University of Nottingham, UK. Prior to this, Maryam worked as a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Engineering and Physical Sciences department, Biological Chemistry, Biophysics and Bioengineering institute at Heriot-Watt University. Maryam obtained her PhD at Heriot-Watt University, UK (2017) and holds an MSc and Bachelor of Chemical Engineering from Azad University, Iran (2011). Maryam works as a Webinar organiser for IChemE, education special interest group (EdSIG). Her current research interest is in engineering education.

Luke J. Prendergast

Dr. Luke J. Prendergast is Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering at University of Nottingham, UK. Prior to this, Luke worked as a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Luke obtained his PhD at University College Dublin, Ireland (2015) and holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) from University College Cork, Ireland (2011). Luke works as an Assistant Editor at the (Elsevier) Journal of Sound and Vibration (JSV), with focus on research related to damage identification in civil engineering structures. His current research interests include Structural Health Monitoring, Vibration-Based Bridge Scour Monitoring, Vehicle-Bridge Interaction, and Offshore Wind Foundation Engineering.

Jonathan D. Tew

Dr. Jonathan D. Tew is a Teaching Associate in Chemical & Environmental Engineering at the University of Nottingham, UK. Prior to this, Jon completed his PhD in Chemical Engineering from the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Sheffield (2021). He also holds an MEng in Bioengineering, from the same institution. He is interested in engineering education, particle engineering and sustainable manufacturing.

Daniel Beneroso-Vallejo

Dr. Daniel Beneroso-Vallejo is currently Senior Process Engineer at Bechtel Corporation, UK. Prior to this, Daniel worked as an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham in the UK until December 2022. Daniel obtained his PhD at University of Oviedo, Spain (2016) and holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Chemical) from University of Malaga, Spain (2010). Daniel's work as an academic at the University of Nottingham was focussed on research related to engineering education, particularly on elucidating learning mechanisms in engineering students and how these could empower students to make informed, evidence-based decisions as future professional engineers.

Appendix

Table A1. Outcomes from Question 1 (Reactor design module) for each category and code themes as a percentage (n = 31).

Category name	Percentage of total respond		Code theme	Percentage of total respond
	Synchronous	Asynchronous		Synchronous	Asynchronous
Cognitive	100.0	100.0	Confirmation of understanding	64.5	22.6
			Knowledge reinforcement	35.5	–
			Self-assessment and reflection	29.03	12.9
			Time management	–	74.2
Social	32.26	6.45	Social learning	12.9	6.4
			Trusting environment	6.4	–
			Sense of community	3.2	–
			Competition-based learning	9.7	–

Table A2. Outcomes from Question 1 (Material and sustainable processes module) for each category and code themes as a percentage (n = 10).

Category name	Percentage of total respond		Code theme	Percentage of total respond
	Synchronous	Asynchronous		Synchronous	Asynchronous
Cognitive	100.0	30.0	Confirmation of understanding	60.0	10.0
			Knowledge reinforcement	30.0	–
			Self-assessment and reflection	10.0	–
			Time management	–	20
Social	80.0	0.0	Social learning	50.0	–
			Trusting environment	10.0	–
			Sense of community	–	–
			Competition-based learning	20.0	–

Table A3. Outcomes from Question 1 (Geotechnics module) for each category and code themes as a percentage (n = 20).

Category name	Percentage of total respond		Code theme	Percentage of total respond
	Synchronous	Asynchronous		Synchronous	Asynchronous
Cognitive	65.0	100.0	Confirmation of understanding	35.0	15.0
			Knowledge reinforcement	20.0	–
			Self-assessment and reflection	10.0	5.0
			Time management	–	65.0
Social	20.0	0.0	Social learning	15.0	–
			Trusting environment	–	–
			Sense of community	–	–
			Competition-based learning	5.0	–